This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-01-22 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The decision in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, which is an action for judicial partition of the subject property, determines what Partenio, and ultimately, respondent, as his successor-in-interest, is entitled to in Civil Case No. 140-0-93. As Partenio's successor-in-interest to the property, respondent could not acquire any superior right in the property than what Partenio is entitled to or could transfer or alienate after partition. In a contract of sale of co-owned property, what the vendee obtains by virtue of such a sale are the same rights as the vendor had as co-owner, and the vendee merely steps into the shoes of the vendor as co-owner.[13] | |||||
|
2006-11-16 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| LORETO sold the subject property to GABINO, JR. on May 12, 1986 as a co-owner. LORETO had a right, even before the partition of the property on January 19, 1987,[23] to transfer in whole or in part his undivided interest in the lot even without the consent of his co-heirs. This right is absolute in accordance with the well-settled doctrine that a co-owner has full ownership of his pro-indiviso share and has the right to alienate, assign or mortgage it, and substitute another person for its enjoyment.[24] Thus, what GABINO, JR. obtained by virtue of the sale on May 12, 1986 were the same rights as the vendor LORETO had as co-owner, in an ideal share equivalent to the consideration given under their transaction.[25] | |||||