1. TAÑEDO V.

CA (January 22, 1996)

FACTS:
Lazaro Tañedo executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Ricardo Tañedo and Teresita
Barrera in which he conveyed a parcel of land which he will inherit. Upon the death of his
father he executed an affidavit of conformity to reaffirm the said sale. He also executed
another deed of sale in favor of the spouses covering the parcel of land he already
inherited. Ricardo registered the last deed of sale in the registry of deeds in their favor.

Ricardo later learned that Lazaro sold the same property to his children through a deed of
sale.

ISSUE:
WON the Tañedo spouses have a better right over the property against the children of
Lazaro Tañedo.

HELD:
Since a future inheritance generally cannot be a subject of a contract, the deed of sale and
the affidavit of conformity made by Lazaro has no effect. The subject of dispute therefore is
the deed of sale made by him in favor of spouses Tañedo and another to his children after
he already legally acquired the property.

Thus, although the deed of sale in favor of private respondents was later than the one in
favor of petitioners, ownership would vest in the former because of the undisputed fact of
registration. On the other hand, petitioners have not registered the sale to them at all.

Petitioners contend that they were in possession of the property and that private
respondents never took possession thereof. As between two purchasers, the one who
registered the sale in his favor has a preferred right over the other who has not registered
his title, even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable property.

2. Cruz vs. Cabana [G.R. No. 56232. June 22, 1984.]

Facts:
The land in question was sold by Leodegracia Cabana with right of repurchase on 1 June
1965 to Spouses Teofilo Legaspi and lluminada Cabaña. The said document
‘BilihangMulingMabibili’ stipulated that the land can be repurchased by the vendor within
1 year from 31 December 1966, however, said land was not repurchased and in the
meantime, said spouses took possession of the land. Upon request of Leodegaria Cabaña,
the title of the land was lent to her in order to mortgage the property to the PNB. Said title
was deposited with the PNB. On 21 October 1968, Cabaña sold the land by way of absolute
sale to the spouses. Said spouses attempted to register the deed of sale but said registration
was not accomplished because they could not present the owner’s duplicate of title which
was at that time in the possession of the PNB as mortgage. However, on 29 November 1968
Cabana sold the same property to Abellardo Cruz. Likewise, when Cruz tried to register the
deed of sale executed by Leodegaria Cabaña on 3 September 1970, he was informed that
the owner thereof had sold the land to the spouses on 21 October 1968. Still, Cruz was able
to register the land in his name on 9 February 1971.
Issue:
Was there a Double sale?
Ruling:
Yes, Article 1544 provides that “If the same thing should have been sold to different
vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken
possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should it be immovable
property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first
recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall
pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence
thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.”
Spouses were the first buyers, first on 1 June 1965 under a sale with right of repurchase
and later on 21 October 1968 under a deed of absolute sale and that they had taken
possession of the land sold to them. Cruz was the second buyer under a deed of sale dated
29 November 1968. The spouses were the first and the only ones to be in possession of the
subject property.
3.NAVERA V. CA (April 26, 1990)

FACTS:
LeocadioNavera owns a parcel of land in Albay which was inherited by his 5 children. His 3 children
already have their share of the inheritance from the other properties of Leocadio. The subject land was
now owned by his 2 daughters. An OCT was issued in the name of Elena Navera et.al (et.al refers to his
sister EduardaNavera)

When Elena died, his share of the land was inherited by her heirs Arsenio and Felix Narez. The other
portion was owned by Eduarda.

Eduarda sold her portion to her nephew Arsenio and then one year after to Mariano Navera. Both sales
were made in a public instrument but both sales were also not registered in the Registry of Property.

ISSUE:
WON the second sale of the property is valid.

HELD:
Since the records show that both sales were not recorded in the Registry of Property, the law clearly
vests the ownership upon the person who in good faith was first in possession of the disputed lot.

The possession viewed in the law includes not only the material but also the symbolic possession, which
is acquired by the execution of a public instrument. This means that after the sale of a realty by means of
a public instrument, the vendor, who resells it to another, does not transmit anything to the second
vendee, and if the latter, by virtue of this second sale, takes material possession of the thing, he does it
as mere detainer, and it would be unjust to protect this detention against the rights of the thing lawfully
acquired by the first vendee.

In the case at bar, the prior sale of the land to respondent Arsenio Nares by means of a public instrument
is clearly tantamount to a delivery of the land resulting in the material and symbolic possession thereof by
the latter.

4.Agricultural and Home Extension Development Group vs. CA

Facts: On 29 March 1972, the spouses Andres Diaz and Josefa Mia sold to Bruno Gundran a 19-hectare
parcel of land in Las Piñas, Rizal, covered by TCT 287416. The owner’s duplicate copy of the title was
turned over to Gundran. However, he did not register the Deed of Absolute Sale because he said he was
advised in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pasig of the existence of notices of lispendens on the
title. On 20 November 1972, Gundran and Agricultural and Home Development Group (AHDG) entered
into a Joint Venture Agreement for the improvement and subdivision of the land. This agreement was
also not annotated on the title. On 30 August 1976, the spouses Andres Diaz and Josefa Mia again
entered into another contract of sale of the same property with LibradoCabautan. On 3 September
1976, by virtue of an order of the CFI Rizal, a new owner’s copy of the certificate of title was issued to
the Diaz spouses, who had alleged the loss of their copy. On that same date, the notices of lispendens
annotated on TCT 287416 were canceled and the Deed of Sale in favor of Cabautan was recorded. A new
TCT S-33850/T-172 was thereupon issued in his name in lieu of the canceled TCT 287416.

Issue:

Who has better right?

Ruling:

Cabautan took the risk of acquiring the property even in the light of notice of lispendens inscribed in the
title. Significantly, three days after the execution of the deed of sale in his favor, the notices of
lispendens were canceled by virtue of the orders of the CFI Rizal, Branch 23, dated 1 and 4 April 1974.
Cabautan therefore acquired the land free of any liens or encumbrances and so could claim to be a
purchaser in good faith and for value.

5.Balatbat v. CA
Facts:

On 15 June 1977, Aurelio A. Roque filed a complaint for partition against his children Corazon, Feliciano,
Severa and Osmundo Roque, and Alberto de los Santos before the CFI Manila. The Roque children were
declared in default and Aurelio presented evidence ex-parte. On 29 March 1979, the trial court rendered
a decision in favor of Aurelio; holding that Aurelio and his wife Maria Mesina acquired the lot during
their conjugal union, as well as the house that was constructed thereon; that when Maria Mesina died
on 28 August 1966, leaving no debt, Aurelio (as surviving spouse) was entitled to ½ share pro-indiviso of
the conjugal property and that Aurelio and his 4 children were entitled to 1/5 share pro-indiviso each of
the ½ share pro-indiviso forming the estate of Maria Mesina; ordering the partition of the properties;
and dismissing Aurelio’s claim for damages. On 2 June 1979, the decision became final and executory.
On 5 October 1979, the Register of Deeds of Manila issued TCT 135671 (with Aurelio Roque having 6/10
share; and the Roque children with 1/10 share each). On 1 April 1980, Aurelio sold his 6/10 share in TCT
135671 to spouses Aurora Tuazon-Repuyan and Jose Repuyan as evidenced by a “Deed of Absolute
Sale.” On 21 July 1980, Aurora Tuazon Repuyan caused the annotation of her affidavit of adverse claim
on the TCT 135671, “claiming that she bought 6/10 portion of the property from Aurelio Roque for the
amount of P50,000.00 with a downpayment of P5,000.00 and the balance of P45,000.00 to be paid after
the partition and subdivision of the property.”

Issue:

Is there a valid sale?

Ruling:

Yes, The sale dated 1 April 1980 in favor the Repuyan spouses is consummated, hence, valid and
enforceable; not merely executory for the reason that there was no delivery of the subject property and
that consideration/price was not fully paid. In a decision dated 15 April 1986 of the RTC Manila (Branch
IV, Civil Case 134131), the Court dismissed Aurelio complaint for rescission of the deed of sale and
declared that the sale dated 1 April 1980, as valid and enforceable. No appeal having been made, the
decision became final and executory. It must be noted that Balatbat filed a motion for intervention in
that case but did not file her complaint in intervention.

6.CRUZ V. CABANA (June 22, 1984)

FACTS:
Leodegaria Cabana sold his real propery first to Teofilo Legaspi and Illuminada Cabana and then later to
Abelardo Cruz.

Legaspi and Cabana were able to take possession of the property but they were not able to register the
deed of absolute sale because the property was still mortgaged to PNB. They however were able to
register with the RD the sale with the right to repurchase.

On the other hand, Cruz succeeded to register the deed of absolute sale in his favor.
Isuse:
Who has better right?

HELD:
Even though Cruz was the first to register the deed of absolute sale, he cannot be given a better right
over the property because he was a buyer in bad faith.

Cruz knew the prior sale of the property because he was informed by the RD that Legazpi and Cabana
already registered the sale of the said property.

Knowledge of a prior transfer of a registered property by a subsequent purchaser makes him a purchaser
in bad faith and his knowledge of such transfer vitiates his title acquired by virtue of the latter instrument
of conveyance which creates no right as against the first purchaser.
7.Radiowealth Finance vs. Palileo
Facts:

On 13 April 1970, spouses Enrique Castro and Herminia R. Castro sold to Manuelito Palileo, a parcel of
unregistered coconut land situated in Candiis, Mansayaw, Mainit, Surigao del Norte. The sale is
evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. The deed was not registered in the Registry of Property
for unregistered lands in the province of Surigao del Norte. Since the execution of the deed of sale,
Manuelito Palileo who was then employed at Lianga, Surigao del Sur, exercised acts of ownership over
the land through his mother Rafaela Palileo, as administratrix or overseer. He has continuously paid the
real estate taxes on said land from 1971 until the present. On 29 November 1976, a judgment was
rendered against Enrique T. Castroto pay Radiowealth Finance Company, the sum of P22,350.35 with
interest thereon. Upon the finality of the judgment, a writ of execution was issued. Pursuant to said
writ, the provincial Sheriff levied upon and finally sold at public auction the subject land that Castro had
sold to Palileo. A certificate of sale was executed by the Provincial Sheriff in favor of Radiowealth
Finance Company, being the only bidder. After the period of redemption had expired, a deed of final
sale was also executed by the same Provincial Sheriff. Both the certificate of sale and the deed of final
sale were registered with the Registry of Deeds. Learning of what happened to the land, Palileo filed an
action for quieting of title over the same.

Issue:

Is the Deed of Sale valid?

Ruling:

The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on this Court and will not be disturbed unless
there is grave abuse of discretion. The finding of the Court of Appeals that the property in question was
already sold to Palileo by its previous owner before the execution sale is evidenced by a deed of sale.
Said deed of sale is notarized and is presumed authentic. There is no substantive proof to support
petitioner’s allegation that the document is fictitious or simulated. There is no reason to reject the
conclusion of the Court of Appeals that Palileo was not a mere administrator of the property. It is
undisputed that he exercised acts of ownership through his mother.

8.Dagupan Trading vs. Macam

Facts:

In 1955, Sammy Maron and his 7 brothers and sisters were pro-indiviso owners of a parcel of
unregistered land located in barrio Parayao, Binmaley, Pangasinan. While their application for
registration of said land under Act 496 was pending, they executed, on June 19 and 21 September 1955,
two deeds of sale conveying the property to RusticoMacam, who thereafter took possession thereof and
proceeded to introduce substantial improvements therein. One month later, that is on 14 October 1955,
OCT 6942 covering the land was issued in the name of the Marons, free from all liens and
encumbrances. On 4 August 1956, by virtue of a final judgment rendered by the Municipal Court of
Manila against Sammy Maron in favor of the Manila Trading and Supply Company, levy was made upon
whatever interest he had in the the property, and thereafter said interest was sold at public auction to
the judgment creditor. The corresponding notice of levy, certificate of sale and the sheriff’s certificate of
final sale in favor of the Manila Trading and Supply Co. (because nobody exercised the right of
redemption) were duly registered. On 1 March 1958, the latter sold all its rights and title in the property
to Dagupan Trading Company.

Issue:

Whether or not Torrens title cancels unregistered sale.

Ruling:

Torrens title did not cancel unregistered sale and consequent conveyance of title and ownership The
unregistered sale and the consequent conveyance of title and ownership in favor of Macam could not
have been cancelled and rendered of no effect upon the subsequent issuance of the Torrens title over
the entire parcel of land.

9.Carumba vs. CA
Facts:

On 12 April 1956, the spouses Amado Canuto and Nemesia Ibasco, by virtue of a Deed of Sale of
Unregistered Land with Covenants of “Warranty,’ sold a parcel of land, partly residential and partly
coconut land with a periphery (area) of 359.09 square meters, more or less, located in the barrio of
Santo Domingo, Iriga, Camarines Sur, to the spouses Amado Carumba and Benita Canuto, for the sum of
P350.00. The referred deed of sale was never registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of
Camarines Sur, and the Notary, Mr. Vicente Malaya, was not then an authorized notary public in the
place. Besides, it has been expressly admitted by Carumba that he is the brother-in-law of Canuto, the
alleged vendor of the property sold to him. Canuto is the older brother of the wife of Carumba

Issue:

Whether or not Art 1544 applies on unregistered land

Ruling:

While under the invoked Article 1544, registration in good faith prevails over possession in the event of
a doubt sale by the vendor of the same piece of land to different vendees, said article is of no
application to the present case, even if Balbuena, the later vendee, was ignorant of the prior sale made
by his judgment debtor in favor of Carumba. The reason is that the purchaser of Unregistered land at a
sheriff’s execution saleonly steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor, and merely acquires the latter’s
interest in the property sold as of the time the property was levied upon.
10.Philippine Trust Co. v. National Bank, 42 Phil. 413 [1921]

Facts:

Salvador Hermanos, a copartnership, executed eight promissory notes infavor

of the respondent bank each secured by a quedan or a warehouse receipt
issued by the firm of Nieva, Ruiz and Company. The note pertains to copra in piculs
and its corresponding value. Later, Hermanos withdrew three of the receipts from the
bank. Subsequently, Hermanos file a petition for insolvency which was granted, and
herein petitioner was selected its assignee. It made a demand for the surrender of the
receipts and upon the bank’s refusal, Phil. Trust filed an action to recover the value of
the copra, alleging that at the time the petition for insolvency was filed by Hermanos,
it was the sole and exclusive owner of the property and that the bank unlawfully
seized and converted the same for its own use.

Issue:
Who is the owner of the goods covered by the warehouse receipts?
Ruling:
The bank is the owner of the five quedans and is entitled to the possession and
control of the property and has the right to sell it and apply the proceeds of the sale to
the promissory notes. The execution of the notes, the physical possession of the
negotiable quedan, or warehouse receipt, and the recognition of ownership by the
warehouseman, legally carried with it both the title to, and the possession of, the
property. In such case, a title is not founded on a public instrument which should be
authenticated by a notary or by competent public official. L e g a l l y s p e a k i n g ,
t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e promissory notes and the pledging of the quedans,
or warehousereceipts, as collateral, and the describing of them in the
notes,a n d t h e m a n u a l d e l i v e r y o f t h e q u e d a n , o r w a r e h o u s e r e c e i p
t itself carries with it not only the title, but the legal possession
of the property.
I n o t h e r w o r d s , a s t o t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i b e d i n t h e quedans
, o r w a r e h o u s e r e c e i p t s , w h i c h w e r e p l e d g e d , a s c o l l a t e r a l , i n January,
1919, to secure the eight respective promissory notes, both thetitle and
the possession of that property were delivered to and vested
int h e d e f e n d a n t b a n k i n J a n u a r y , 1 9 1 9 . T h r e e o f t h o s e q u
e d a n s , o r warehouse receipts, were returned to th e firm by the bank on
February1 0 , 1 9 1 9 , b u t t h e b a n k s t i l l o w n e d a n d h e l d t h e n o t e s ,
w h i c h w e r e secured by those warehouse receipts, and no part of the debt
itself waspaid by or through the surrender of the receipts.
11. Siy Cong Bieng and Co. vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp.
[G.R. No. 34655. March 5, 1932.]

Facts:

Siy Cong Bieng & Co., a corporation engaged in business generally, and Hongkong & Shanghai
Banking Corporation, a foreign bank authorized to engage in the banking business in the Philippines, are
domiciled in the City of Manila. On 25 June 1926, certain negotiable warehouse receipts were pledged
by Otto Ranft to the bank to secure the payment of his preexisting debts to the latter. The baled hemp
covered by the warehouse receipts was worth P31,635; receipts numbers 1707, 133, 1722, 1723, 1634,
and 1702 being endorsed in blank by Siy Cong Bieng and Otto Ranft, and numbers 1918 and 2, by Otto
Ranft alone. On 25 June 1926, Ranft called at the office of Siy Cong Bieng to purchase hemp (abaca), and
he was offered the bales of hemp as described in the quedans. The parties agreed to the price
(P31,645), and on the same date the quedans, together with the covering invoice, were sent to Ranft,
without having been paid for the hemp, but Siy Cong Bieng’s understanding was that the payment
would be made against the same quedans, and it appears that in previous transactions of the same kind
between the bank and Siy Cong Bieng, quedans were paid one or two days after their delivery to them.
In the evening of the day upon which the quedans in question were delivered to the bank, Ranft died
suddenly at his home in the city of Manila, and when Siy Cong Bieng found that such was the case, it
immediately demanded the return of the quedans, or the payment of the value, but was told that the
quedans had been sent to the bank as soon as they were received by Ranft.

Issue:
Whether or not HSBC acquired rightful and valid title over the quedans
Held:
Yes, HSBC acquired valid title.It is duly because: first, that the quedans
in question were negotiable in form; second, that they werepledge by Otto Ranft
to the Defendant bank to secure the payment of his preexisting debts to
saidbank; and third, that such of the quedans as were issued in the name of
the Plaintiff were duly endorsed in blank by the Plaintiff and by Otto Ranft.
As provided in Sec 41 of the WarehouseReceipts Act, the person to who a
receipt has been negotiated has the right also to the title to thegoods as the
depositor of person to whose order it was delivered. Thus, the entrustment of
the quedans is more than delivery of goods, it is a representation that the
possession of the possession of the receipt entrust the title to the goods. As
provided in the same Act,said negotiation is notimpaired by breaches of trust
or violations of agreement. Hence, the plaintiff is estopped to deny
the bank’s right to the valid title over the quedans. The rule on equitable
estoppels is applied thatwhere one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss,
he who by conduct made the loss possible,must bear it.
12. Almendra vs. IAC
[G.R. No. 75111. November 21, 1991.]

Facts:

The mother, Aleja Ceno, was first married to Juanso Yu Book with whom she had 3 children
named Magdaleno, Melecia and Bernardina, all surnamed Ceno. Sometime in the 1920’s, Juanso Yu
Book took his family to China where he eventually died. Aleja and her daughter Bernardina later
returned to the Philippines. During said marriage, Aleja acquired a parcel of land which she declared in
her name. After Juanso Yu Book’s death, Bernardina filed against her mother a case for the partition of
the said property in the then CFI Leyte. On 17 August 1970, the lower court rendered a “supplemental
decision” finding that the said property had been subdivided. The Court declared Bernardina Ojeda
owner of and entitled to possession of Lot 6354; Ojeda as owner of and entitled to possession of Lot
6353 without prejudice to whatever rights her sister Melecia Ceno (presently in China) may have over
the property; Aleja Almendra as owner of and entitled to possession of Lot 6366; and Aleja Almendra as
owner of and entitled to possession of Lot 6352, subject to whatever may be the rights thereto of her
son Magdaleno Ceno (presently in China). The Court ordered the parties to bear the fees of the
commissioner. Meanwhile, Aleja married Santiago Almendra with whom she had 4 children. During said
marriage Aleja and Santiago acquired a 59,196-sq.ms. parcel of land in Cagbolo, Abuyog, Leyte. OCT was
issued therefor in the name of Santiago Almendra married to Aleja Ceno and it was declared for tax
purposes in his name. In addition to said properties, Aleja inherited from her father, Juan Geno, a
16,000-sq.ms. parcel of land also in Cagbolo. For his part, her husband Santiago inherited from his
mother, Nicolasa Alvero, a 16-sq. ms. parcel of residential land located in Nalibunan, Abuyog, Leyte.
While Santiago was alive, he apportioned these properties among Aleja’s children in the Philippines,
including Bernardina, who, in turn, shared the produce of the properties with their parents. After
Santiago’s death, Aleja sold to her daughter, Angeles Almendra, two parcels of land in the deed of sale
dated 10 August 1973, and ½ portion or conjugal share of land both located in Bo. Cagbolo, Abuyog,
Leyte. On 26 December 1973, Aleja sold to her son, Roman Almendra, also for P2,000 a parcel of land
described in the deed of sale as located in Cagbolo, Abuyog, Leyte “under T/D 11500 which cancelled
T/D 9635; having an area of 6.6181 hec., assessed at P1,580.00.” On the same day, Aleja sold to Angeles
and Roman again for P2,000 yet another parcel of land described in the deed of sale (Lot 6352). Aleja
died on 7 May 1975.

Issue:

Was there a valid ground to nullify the Deeod of Sale?

Ruling:

There is no valid, legal and convincing reason for nullifying the questioned deeds of sale.
Petitioner had not presented any strong, complete and conclusive proof to override the evidentiary
value of the duly notarized deeds of sale. Moreover, the testimony of the lawyer who notarized the
deeds of sale that he saw not only Aleja signing and affixing her thumbmark on the questioned deeds
but also Angeles and Aleja “counting money between them,” deserves more credence than the self-
serving allegations of the petitioners. Such testimony is admissible as evidence without further proof of
the due execution of the deeds in question and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of their contents in
the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

13.Paulmitan vs. CA
[G.R. No. 61584. November 25, 1992.]

Facts:

From her marriage with Ciriaco Paulmitan, deceased, Agatona Sagario Paulmitan begot two
legitimate children, Pascual and Donato Paulmitan. Agatona Sagario Paulmitan died sometime in 1953
and left the 2 parcels of land located in the Province of Negros Occidental (Lot 757 with an area of 1,946
sq.ms., OCT RO8376; and Lot 1091 with an area of 69,080 sq.ms., OCT RO-11653). Pascual Paulmitan
also died in 1953, apparently shortly after his mother passed away, leaving his children, namely: Alicio,
Elena, Abelino, Adelina, Sales, 2003 ( 191 ) Haystacks (Berne Guerrero) Anita, Baking and Anito, all
surnamed Paulmitan. Until 1963, the estate of Agatona Sagario Paulmitan remained unsettled and the
titles to the two lots remained in the name of Agatona. However, on 11 August 1963, Donato Paulmitan
executed an Affidavit of Declaration of Heirship, extrajudicially adjudicating unto himself Lot 757 based
on the claim that he is the only surviving heir of Agatona Sagario. The affidavit was filed with the
Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental who, on 20 August 1963, cancelled OCT RO-8376 in the name of
Agatona Sagario and issued TCT 35979 in Donato’s name. As regards Lot 1091, Donato executed on 28
May 1974 a Deed of Sale over the same in favor of Juliana P. Fanesa, his daughter (married to Rodolfo
Fanesa). In the meantime, sometime in 1952, for non-payment of taxes, Lot 1091 was forfeited and sold
at a public auction, with the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental being the buyer. A Certificate
of Sale over the land was executed by the Provincial Treasurer in favor of the Provincial Board of Negros
Occidental. On 29 May 1974, Juliana P. Fanesa redeemed the property from the Provincial Government
of Negros Occidental for the amount of P2,959.09.

Issue:

What would be the effect of selling of property by one of the co-owner?

Ruling
 Article 493: Only the rights of the seller are transferred, buyer becomes co-owner. “each co-
owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he
may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it and even substitute another person in its enjoyment,
except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or mortgage, with respect to
the co owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
termination of the co-ownership.”

Even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not
those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. This is because under the codal provision,
the sale or other disposition affects only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what would
correspond to his grantor in the partition of the thing owned in common. Thus, it may be deduced that
since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner
without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. However, only the rights of the co-
owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.” Thus, in the
present case, the sale by Donato Paulmitan of the land to his daughter did not give to the latter
ownership over the entire land but merely transferred to her the ½ undivided share of her father, thus
making her the co-owner of the land in question with her first cousins.

14.Mindanao Academy vs. Yap [G.R. No. L-17681. February 26, 1965.]
Facts:

By deed entitled “Mutual Agreement,” executed on 10 May 1964, Rosenda A. de Nuqui (widow
of Sotero Dionisio) and her son Sotero Dionisio, Jr. sold 3 parcels of residential land in Oroquieta,
Misamis Occidental, and another parcel in Ozamis City in favor of Ildefonso D. Yap. Included in the sale
were certain buildings situated on said lands as well as laboratory equipment, books, furniture and
fixtures used by 2 schools established in the respective properties: the Mindanao Academy in Oroquieta
and the Misamis Academy in Ozamis City. The aggregate price stated in the deed was P100,700.00, to be
paid according to the terms and conditions specified in the contract. Besides Rosenda and her son
Sotero, Jr., both of whom signed the instrument, Adelaida Dionisio Nuesa (a daughter of Rosenda, and
married to Wilson Nuesa) is also named therein as co-vendor, but actually did not take part either
personally or through her uncle and supposed attorney-in-fact, Restituto Abuton. These three (mother
and children) are referred to in the deed as the owners pro-indiviso of the properties sold. The truth,
however, was that there were other co-owners of the lands, namely, Erlinda D. Diaz (and Antolin Diaz),
Ester Aida D. Bas (and Mauricio O. Bas), Rosalinda D. Belleza (and Apolinario Belleza) and Luz Minda D.
Dajao (and Elifio C. Dajao), children also of Rosenda by her deceased husband Sotero Dionisio, Sr., and
that as far as the school buildings, equipment, books, furniture and fixtures were concerned, they were
owned by the Mindanao Academy, Inc., a corporation operating both the Mindanao Academy in
Oroquieta and the Misamis Academy in Ozamis City. The buyer, Ildefonso D. Yap, obtained possession of
the properties by virtue of the sale, took over the operation of the two schools and even changed their
names to Harvardian Colleges.
Issue:

Is mutual Mutual Agreement entirely void?

Ruling:

The mutual agreement dated 10 May 1954 is entirely void and legally non-existent in that the
vendors therein ceded to Yap not only their interest, rights, shares and participation in the property sold
but also those that belonged to persons who were not parties thereto. This conclusion is premised on
two grounds: (a) the contract purported to sell properties of which the sellers were not the only owners,
since of the four parcels of land mentioned in the deed their shares consisted only of 7/12, (6/12:
Rosenda Nuqui and 1/12 for Sotero, Jr.), while in the buildings, laboratory equipment, books, furniture
and fixtures they had no participation at all, the owner being the Mindanao Academy, Inc.; and (b) the
prestation involved in the sale was indivisible, and therefore incapable of partial annulment, inasmuch
as Yap would not have entered into the transaction except to acquire all of the properties purchased by
him.