April 2, 1951

G.R. No. L-3404

ANGELA I. TUASON, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ANTONIO TUASON, JR., and GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., defendants-
FACTS: In 1941 the sisters Angela I. Tuason and Nieves Tuason de Barreto and their brother Antonio Tuason Jr., held a
parcel of land with an area of 64,928.6 sq. m. covered by Certificate of Title No. 60911 in Sampaloc, Manila, in common,
each owning an undivided 1/3 portion

The share of Nieves was sold to Gregorio Araneta Inc., a domestic corporation, and a new Certificate of Title No. 61721
was issued in lieu of the old title No. 60911 covering the same property. The three co-owners agreed to have the whole
parcel subdivided into small lots and then sold, the proceeds of the sale to be later divided among them.
Before, during and after the execution of this contract , Atty. J. Antonio Araneta was acting as the attorney-in-fact and
lawyer of the two co-owners, Angela I. Tuason and her brother Antonio Tuason Jr. At the same time he was a member of
the Board of Director of the third co-owner, Araneta, Inc.
On September 16, 1944, Angela I. Tuason revoked the powers conferred on her attorney-in-fact and lawyer, J. Antonio
Araneta because of alleged breach of the terms of the "Memorandum of Agreement" and abuse of powers granted to it in
the document, she had decided to rescind said contract and she asked that the property held in common be partitioned.
Later, Angela filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila asking the court to order the partition of the
property in question and that she be given 1/3 of the same including rents collected during the time that the same including
rents collected during the time that Araneta Inc., administered said property.
The suit was administered principally against Araneta, Inc. Plaintiff's brother, Antonio Tuason Jr., one of the co-owners
evidently did not agree to the suit and its purpose, for he joined Araneta, Inc. as a co-defendant.however the court
dismissed the complaint without pronouncement as to costs. The plaintiff appealed from that decision.
Some of the reasons advanced by appellant to have the memorandum contract (Exh. 6) declared null and void or rescinded
are that she had been tricked into signing it; that she was given to understand by Antonio Araneta acting as her attorney-in-
fact and legal adviser that said contract would be similar to another contract of subdivision of a parcel into lots and the sale
thereof entered into by Gregorio Araneta Inc., that the defendant company has violated the terms of the contract by not
previously showing her the plans of the subdivision, the schedule of prices and conditions of the sale, in not introducing the
necessary improvements into the land and in not delivering to her her share of the proceeds of the rents and sales.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contract should be declared null and void because its terms, particularly paragraphs 9, 11 and
15 which violate the provisions of Art. 400 of the Civil Code

RULING:
ART. 400. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain a party to the community. Each may, at any time, demand the partition
of the thing held in common.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a specified length of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be
valid. This period may be a new agreement.
We agree with the trial court that the provisions of Art. 400 of the Civil Code are not applicable. The contract far from
violating the legal provision that forbids a co-owner being obliged to remain a party to the community, precisely has for its
purpose and object the dissolution of the co-ownership and of the community by selling the parcel held in common and
dividing the proceeds of the sale among the co-owners. The obligation imposed in the contract to preserve the co-
ownership until all the lots shall have been sold, is a mere incident to the main object of dissolving the co-owners. By
virtue of the document, the parties thereto practically and substantially entered into a contract of partnership as the best and
most expedient means of eventually dissolving the co-ownership, the life of said partnership to end when the object of its
creation shall have been attained.
Looking at the case from a practical standpoint as did the trial court, we find no valid ground for the partition insisted upon
the appellant.
In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. There is no pronouncement as to costs.