Case Summary (G.R. No. 189420)
Key Individuals and Context
• Petitioners: Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz (with other co-owners)
• Respondents: Genaro Nolasco (widower of deceased co-owner) and Jeremy Spencer Nolasco (son)
• Property: Two adjoining parcels in Tondo, Manila, totaling 233 sqm
• Succession: Respondents succeeded Iraida Arambulo’s undivided 1/9 share
Petitioner’s Claim and RTC Proceedings
• On January 8, 1999 petitioners sought relief under Article 491 of the Civil Code to compel respondents’ consent to sell the co-owned land shares and to distribute net proceeds accordingly.
• Respondents opposed as premature and denied participation in negotiation.
• RTC, Branch 51, Manila (September 19, 2002) found withholding consent prejudicial to common interest and ordered respondents to consent to sale and specified distribution proportions.
Court of Appeals Reversal
• CA (October 7, 2008) reversed. It held that respondents’ undivided shares enjoy full ownership under Article 493 and cannot be forcibly sold.
• CA found petitioners failed to prove that withholding consent prejudiced any common interest under Article 491’s second paragraph.
Legal Issue
Whether a co-owner who withholds consent to sell an undivided share may be compelled by court order to consent under the Civil Code.
Applicable Law
• Article 491: Prohibits alterations by one co-owner without others’ consent; allows relief only if withholding consent is clearly prejudicial to common interest.
• Article 493: Grants each co-owner full ownership of his part and right to alienate or mortgage; alienation affects only that share.
• Articles 494 and 498: Provide for partition and forced sale when property is indivisible or co-owners cannot agree on allotment.
Supreme Court Analysis of Articles 491 vs. 493
• Article 491 governs alterations of the common thing; sale qualifies as alteration in general jurisprudence.
• However, Article 493 specifically confers absolute right on each co-owner to alienate his undivided share and limits effect of sale to that share.
• The specific provision (Art. 493) prevails over the general (Art. 491) when rights to alienate are asserted.
Jurisprudential Support for Unilateral Alienation
• Bailon-Casilao v. CA (1988) and Lopez v. Vda. De Cuaycong (1944) confirm that sale of an undivided share by one co-owner binds only that share and does not inv
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 189420)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz, together with their mother Rosita Vda. De Arambulo and several siblings, are co-owners of two parcels of land in Tondo, Manila, totaling 233 square meters.
- Upon the death of sister Iraida Arambulo Nolasco, her undivided share passed to her husband Genaro Nolasco and their children, including Jeremy Spencer Nolasco.
- Petitioners allege that all co-owners except respondents have authorized the sale of their shares; respondents alone withhold consent.
- Under petitioners’ proposal: each consenting co-owner receives 1/9 of the sale proceeds; respondents each receive 1/4 of one-ninth corresponding to Iraida’s share.
- Petitioners invoke Article 491 of the Civil Code, arguing that respondents’ refusal to consent constitutes an “alteration” prejudicial to the common interest, entitling them to judicial relief.
Procedural History
- January 8, 1999: Petition for relief under Article 491 filed with RTC of Manila, Branch 51.
- Respondents’ Answer: Motion to dismiss as premature and lack of negotiation.
- Pretrial: Two issues formulated—(1) Whether respondents withhold consent; (2) Whether such withholding is prejudicial.
- September 19, 2002: RTC rules in favor of petitioners and orders respondents to consent to the sale and participate in determining price and sale terms.
- October 7, 2008: Court of Appeals reverses RTC, holding respondents may not be compelled to sell under Article 493 and that petitioners failed to prove prejudice under Article 491.
- July 30, 2009: CA Reso