Case Digest (G.R. No. 189420) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz v. Genaro Nolasco and Jeremy Spencer Nolasco (G.R. No. 189420, March 26, 2014), petitioners Raul V. Arambulo, Teresita A. Dela Cruz, their mother Rosita Vda. De Arambulo and five other siblings were co-owners of two parcels of land in Tondo, Manila, totaling 233 square meters. Upon the death of their sister Iraida Arambulo Nolasco, her undivided one-ninth share devolved to respondent Genaro Nolasco and his three children, including respondent Jeremy Spencer Nolasco. On January 8, 1999, petitioners filed a petition under Article 491 of the Civil Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 51, seeking to compel the respondents’ consent to sell their undivided shares, alleging that all other co-owners had already authorized petitioners to sell and that respondents’ refusal was prejudicial to the common interest. The RTC sided with petitioners on September 19, 2002, ordering respondents to consent to the sale and prescri Case Digest (G.R. No. 189420) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Co-ownership
- Petitioners: Raul V. Arambulo, Teresita A. Dela Cruz, their mother Rosita Vda. De Arambulo, and siblings Primo V. Arambulo, Ma. Lorenza A. Lopez, Ana Maria V. Arambulo, Maximiano V. Arambulo, Julio V. Arambulo, and the late Iraida Arambulo Nolasco.
- Respondents: Genaro Nolasco (Iraida’s surviving husband) and their children Iris Abegail Nolasco, Ingrid Aileen Arambulo, and Jeremy Spencer Nolasco.
- Subject properties: Two parcels in Tondo, Manila, totaling 233 sq m, owned in common by the foregoing parties.
- Petition for Relief under Article 491, Civil Code
- On January 8, 1999, petitioners sought a court order compelling respondents to consent to sale of all co-owners’ shares, alleging that all others had already consented. They proposed distribution of proceeds: each original co-owner 1/9 share; each respondent a 1/4 portion of 1/9.
- Respondents answered, arguing the petition was premature and they had not been consulted on price or buyer.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- Two issues framed at pre-trial: (a) Whether respondents withheld consent to the sale; (b) If so, whether such withholding was prejudicial to the common interest.
- On September 19, 2002, the RTC ruled for petitioners, ordering respondents to consent, authorizing the sale, and prescribing the distribution scheme of the proceeds.
- Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Actions
- Respondents appealed to the CA. On October 7, 2008, the CA reversed, holding that (a) under Article 493, each co-owner has full ownership of his part and cannot be compelled to sell it; (b) petitioners failed to prove prejudice under Article 491.
- Petitioners sought review before the Supreme Court, which on March 26, 2014, denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision, clarifying the inapplicability of Article 491 to the sale of undivided shares.
Issues:
- Can co-owners Genaro and Jeremy Nolasco be compelled by court order to consent to sale of their undivided shares in the common property?
- Does Article 491 or Article 493 of the Civil Code govern the disposition of an undivided share, and is withholding consent to such a sale prejudicial to the common interest?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)