This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-03-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| That a sale constitutes an alteration as mentioned in Article 491 is an established jurisprudence. It is settled that alterations include any act of strict dominion or ownership and any encumbrance or disposition has been held implicitly to be an act of alteration.[9] Alienation of the thing by sale of the property is an act of strict dominion.[10] However, the ruling that alienation is alteration does not mean that a sale of commonly owned real property is covered by the second paragraph of Article 491, such that if a co-owner withholds consent to the sale, the courts, upon a showing of a clear prejudice to the common interest, may, as adequate relief, order the grant of the withheld consent. Such is the conclusion drawn by the trial court, and hinted at, if not relied upon, by the appellate court. | |||||