Facts:

This case involves a Petition for Review filed by petitioners Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz against respondents Genaro Nolasco and Jeremy Spencer Nolasco. The case originated from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 51, which issued a decision on September 19, 2002. The dispute centers around two parcels of land located in Tondo, Manila, with a total area of 233 square meters, co-owned by the petitioners and their family, including their deceased sister Iraida, who was succeeded by her husband Genaro and their children. Following Iraida's death, the petitioners sought to sell their respective shares of the property, claiming that all co-owners except the respondents had consented to the sale. The petitioners filed a petition for relief under Article 491 of the Civil Code, arguing that the respondents' refusal to consent to the sale was prejudicial to their common interest. The respondents countered that they were unaware of any negotiations a...

Facts:

Co-Ownership of Properties:

• Petitioners Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz, along with their mother Rosita Vda. De Arambulo and siblings, are co-owners of two parcels of land in Tondo, Manila, with a total area of 233 square meters.
• Upon the death of their sister Iraida Arambulo Nolasco, her share in the properties passed to her husband, respondent Genaro Nolasco, and their children, including respondent Jeremy Spencer Nolasco.

Petition for Sale:

• On January 8, 1999, petitioners filed a petition for relief under Article 491 of the Civil Code with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, seeking to sell the co-owned properties.
• Petitioners claimed that all co-owners, except respondents, had consented to the sale. They argued that respondents' refusal to consent was prejudicial to the common interest of the co-owners.

Respondents' Defense:

• Respondents opposed the petition, arguing that they were not informed of the intention to sell and were not part of any negotiations. They sought dismissal of the petition as premature.

Trial Court Decision:

• On September 19, 2002, the RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering respondents to consent to the sale and allowing the sale of the properties. The court also directed the distribution of proceeds among the co-owners.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals:

• Respondents appealed the RTC decision. On October 7, 2008, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling, holding that respondents, as co-owners, could not be compelled to sell their undivided shares. The appellate court found that petitioners failed to prove how respondents' refusal was prejudicial to the common interest.

Issue:

1. Whether respondents, as co-owners, can be compelled to give their consent to the sale of their shares in the co-owned properties.
2. Whether the withholding of consent by respondents is prejudicial to the common interest of the co-owners.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled that respondents, as co-owners, cannot be compelled to sell their shares in the co-owned properties. The proper remedy for petitioners is to file an action for partition. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, and the petition was denied without prejudice to the filing of a partition action.