Title
Sps. Del Campo vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 108228
Decision Date
Feb 1, 2001
Co-owners dispute over Lot 162; Supreme Court validates sale of aliquot share, orders reconveyance due to estoppel and long-term possession.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 108228)

Facts:

  • Original Co-ownership of Lot 162
    • Eight Bornales siblings—Salome, Consorcia, Alfredo, Maria, Rosalia, Jose, Quirico and Julita—owned Lot 162 (27,179 m²) under OCT No. 18047 in aliquot shares.
    • Shares: Salome and Consorcia (4/16 each); Alfredo and Maria (2/16 each); Jose, Quirico, Rosalia, Julita (1/16 each).
  • Sale to Soledad Daynolo (1940)
    • Salome sold part of her 4/16 undivided share by metes and bounds for ₱200.00.
    • Deed of Absolute Sale described a physically segregated portion, sketched and integrated into the deed.
    • Soledad took possession and built a house.
  • Mortgage, Redemption, and Subsequent Sale
    • May 1, 1947: Soledad and husband mortgaged the portion to Jose Regalado, Sr. for ₱400.00.
    • April 14, 1948: Salome, Consorcia and Alfredo purportedly sold 24,993 m² of Lot 162 to Regalado.
    • May 4, 1951: Heirs of Soledad redeemed the mortgage; they then sold the redeemed portion (1,544 m²) to petitioners Manuel and Salvacion del Campo for ₱1,500.00.
  • Reconstitution and Subdivision of Title
    • Regalado caused reconstitution of OCT No. 18047 into OCT No. RO-4541, later registered in his name.
    • He subdivided the tract; Lot 162-C-6 (11,732 m²) issued as TCT No. 14566 (1977).
  • Petitioners’ Complaint and Procedural History
    • 1987: Petitioners filed for repartition, resurvey and reconveyance, claiming ownership of 1,544 m² within Lot 162-C-6.
    • Evidence: deeds of sale, mortgage and discharge, tax declarations, continuous possession since 1951.
    • Trial court (1990): Dismissed complaint, holding the sale void and Torrens title invincible.
    • Court of Appeals (1999): Affirmed the dismissal.

Issues:

  • Whether a co-owner’s sale of a definite portion of an undivided property is valid.
  • Whether respondents are estopped from denying petitioners’ title by virtue of the mortgage and discharge deeds.
  • Whether petitioners are entitled to repartition, resurvey and reconveyance of the disputed area.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.