Pamplona v. Moreto

n. Rights of a Co-owner — Nature of right of co-owner before partition

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Bailon-Casilao v. Court of AppealsPrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: Del Campo v. Court of AppealsNext case→

Case DigestChapter III — Co-ownership

Pamplona v. Moreto

G.R. No. L-33187 · March 31, 1980 · Supreme Court

n. Rights of a Co-owner — Nature of right of co-owner before partition

Gist

Six years after his wife died and before the conjugal estate was liquidated, Flaviano Moreto sold 781 square metres to the Pamplonas, pointing out the ground they then built on — land that turned out to lie in a different lot from the one named in the deed. His wife's heirs sued nine years later to void half the sale. The Supreme Court upheld the sale in full: the seller's undivided half of the three contiguous lots exceeded what he sold, and by pointing out the boundaries without objection a partial factual partition was created.

Core Doctrine

The central doctrine is that a co-owner's Article 493 right to alienate is measured against his whole undivided share in the entire co-owned mass, not against the particular lot named in the deed: where the seller was entitled to 1,173 of 2,346 square metres across three contiguous lots, "he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share." And where the co-owner "pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners," who "acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession," a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created, barring the vendor and his heirs alike.

Facts

Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega were husband and wife, and during their marriage acquired adjacent lots Nos. 1495, 4545 and 1496 of the Calamba Friar Land Estate in Calamba, Laguna, of 781, 544 and 1,021 square metres respectively, titled to "Flaviano Moreto, married to Monica Maniega." That the three lots are contiguous is the fact that decides the case — "the three lots constitute one big land. They are not separate properties located in different places but they abut each other," so the co-ownership covered all 2,346 square metres.
They had six children — Ursulo, Marta, La Paz, Alipio, Pablo and Leandro — all of whom predeceased the suit or are represented in it by their own heirs, the private respondents.
On 6 May 1946, Monica Maniega died intestate, dissolving the conjugal partnership. (The estate "had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and divided"; no settlement proceedings were instituted, and there was neither an extrajudicial partition nor an action for partition — which is exactly how a co-ownership arose between Flaviano and his children.)
On 30 July 1952, "more than six (6) years after the death of his wife" and before any liquidation, Flaviano Moreto, without the consent of Monica's heirs, sold to Geminiano Pamplona, married to Apolonia Onte, by deed of absolute sale, lot No. 1495 for ₱900.00; TCT No. 14570 was cancelled and TCT No. T-5671 issued to the Pamplonas.
But the deed named the wrong lot. At the sale Flaviano "pointed to" the eastern part of lot 1496 as the land he was selling, and the Pamplonas built their house there; shortly after, their son Rafael Pamplona built his house within lot 1496 "about one meter from its boundary." "The vendor Flaviano Moreto and the vendee Geminiano Pamplona thought all the time that the portion of 781 square meters which was the subject matter of their sale transaction was No. 1495," when in fact it was part of lot No. 1496 — a mutual error the parties' own relocation survey later confirmed.
From 1956 to 1960 the Pamplonas enlarged their house and built "a piggery corral at the back of their said house about one and one-half meters from the eastern boundary of lot 1496." The pointing-out of boundaries, the fencing and the building — unopposed — are what the Court treats as effecting a partial factual partition.
On 12 August 1956, Flaviano Moreto died intestate.
In 1961 the plaintiffs demanded that the Pamplonas vacate, on the ground that the lot belonged to the conjugal partnership and Monica was already dead when Flaviano sold without the heirs' consent. On refusal, the heirs sued on 25 July 1961 to declare the deed void as to one half, to be declared owners of that half, to redeem the other half "after payment of the other half of the purchase price," to eject the defendants, and for damages and ₱120.00 a year from August 1958. The suit came over nine years after the buyers took possession and built, with the heirs "liv[ing] as neighbors to the petitioner-vendees" throughout — the basis for the Court's finding of estoppel by laches.
The defendants claimed the sale was valid, the lot being registered in Flaviano's name and they being "purchasers believing in good faith that the vendor was the sole owner."
A relocation survey by agreement of the parties, conducted by private land surveyor Daniel Aranas, established "mutual error": though the deed recited lot No. 1495, "the real intention of the parties is that it was a portion consisting of 781 square meters of lot No. 1496 which was the subject matter of their sale transaction."
The CFI of Laguna, Branch I at Biñan declared the deed null and void as to 390.5 square metres and valid as to the other 390.5, ordered a survey segregating the eastern half, cancelled TCT No. 5671, and ordered new titles issued to both sides. The Court of Appeals affirmed. That half-and-half split is what the Supreme Court rejects.

Issue

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the full ownership of the 781 square metres in litigation, or only one half of it.

Ruling

Main issue. Full ownership — the sale is valid in its entirety. On Monica's death in 1946 the conjugal partnership was dissolved, and as the estate was never liquidated, "the estate became the property of a community between the surviving husband, Flaviano Moreto, and his children with the deceased Monica Maniega in the concept of a co-ownership" — community property on dissolution "becomes the property of a community, by operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse." Article 493 therefore governs, and the arithmetic defeats the heirs: the three lots being contiguous and forming "one big land" of 2,346 square metres, "since Flaviano Moreto was entitled to one-half pro indiviso of the entire land area or 1,173 sq. meters as his share, he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share to the Pamplona spouses. Indeed, there was still a remainder of some 392 sq. meters belonging to him at the time of the sale." Hence "[w]e reject respondent Court's ruling that the sale was valid as to one-half and invalid as to the other half for the very simple reason that Flaviano Moreto, the vendor, had the legal right to more than 781 sq. meters of the communal estate, a title which he could dispose, alienate in favor of the vendees-petitioners." Moreover a partial factual partition occurred: "The title may be pro indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners, on the contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession, We rule that a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created, and barred not only the vendor, Flaviano Moreto, but also his heirs... from asserting as against the vendees-petitioners any right or title in derogation of the deed of sale." The heirs are also barred by estoppel by laches — the houses and corral "stood on the land from 1952 up to the filing of the complaint... or a period of over nine (9) years," during which the heirs "lived as neighbors to the petitioner-vendees, yet lifted no finger to question the occupation, possession and ownership" — laches being "a rule of equity which bars a claimant from presenting his claim when, by reason of abandonment and negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same." And equity apart, they are bound as successors of the vendor: under Articles 1458 and 1495 the vendor must transfer ownership and deliver, under Article 776 the inheritance "included all the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death," and under Article 1311 the sale "took effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs" — so "to the private respondents is transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners... and not only one-half thereof." Equity commands as much, Flaviano having "indisputably received the consideration of ₱900.00 and which he, including his children, benefitted from."

"WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in the sense that the sale made and executed by Flaviano Moreto in favor of the petitioners-vendees is hereby declared legal and valid in its entirety. Petitioners are hereby declared owners in full ownership of the 781 sq. meters at the eastern portion of Lot 1496 now occupied by said petitioners and whereon their houses and piggery coral stand. The Register of Deeds of Laguna is hereby ordered to segregate the area of 781 sq. meters from Certificate of Title No. 9843 and to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title to the petitioners covering the segregated area of 781 sq. meters. No costs. SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The conjugal partnership was dissolved before the sale. "[W]hen the petitioners purchased the property on July 30, 1952 from Flaviano Moreto for the price of ₱900.00, his wife Monica Maniega had already been dead six years before," so "the conjugal partnership... had already been dissolved."
And it was never liquidated. "The records show that the conjugal estate had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and divided by the heirs thereto in accordance with law." No settlement proceedings were instituted, and there was neither an extrajudicial partition nor an action for partition.
So a co-ownership arose. "Accordingly, the estate became the property of a community between the surviving husband, Flaviano Moreto, and his children with the deceased Monica Maniega in the concept of a co-ownership." The community property, on dissolution, "ceases to belong to the legal partnership and becomes the property of a community, by operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse" (Marigsa v. Macabuntoc). Borja v. Addison: "[t]here is no reason in law why the heirs of the deceased wife may not form a partnership with the surviving husband for the management and control of the community property." Prades v. Tecson: the surviving husband's power to sell as administrator "can be waived in favor of the children, with the result of bringing about a conventional ownership in common," and a purchaser with notice "will acquire only the undivided interest of those members of the family who join in the act of conveyance."
Estoppel by laches bars the heirs. The houses and the corral "stood on the land from 1952 up to the filing of the complaint by the private respondents on July 25, 1961, or a period of over nine (9) years. And during said period, the private respondents... lived as neighbors to the petitioner-vendees, yet lifted no finger to question the occupation, possession and ownership of the land purchased by the Pamplonas." "Estoppel by laches is a rule of equity which bars a claimant from presenting his claim when, by reason of abandonment and negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same."
Article 493 is quoted and applied to the whole mass. The three lots "are contiguous with one another as each is bounded on one side by the other," so "the three lots constitute one big land. They are not separate properties located in different places but they abut each other," and "at the time of the sale, the co-ownership constituted or covered these three lots adjacent to each other."
The arithmetic. "[S]ince Flaviano Moreto was entitled to one-half pro indiviso of the entire land area or 1,173 sq. meters as his share, he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share to the Pamplona spouses. Indeed, there was still a remainder of some 392 sq. meters belonging to him at the time of the sale."
Hence the courts below erred. "We reject respondent Court's ruling that the sale was valid as to one-half and invalid as to the other half for the very simple reason that Flaviano Moreto, the vendor, had the legal right to more than 781 sq. meters of the communal estate, a title which he could dispose, alienate in favor of the vendees-petitioners."
A partial factual partition. "We agree with the petitioner that there was a partial partition of the co-ownership when at the time of the sale Flaviano Moreto pointed out the area and location of the 781 sq. meters sold by him to the petitioners-vendees on which the latter built their house and also that whereon Rafael, the son of petitioners likewise erected his house and an adjacent coral for piggery."
Its elements and effect. "The title may be pro indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners, on the contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession, We rule that a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created, and barred not only the vendor, Flaviano Moreto, but also his heirs, the private respondents herein from asserting as against the vendees-petitioners any right or title in derogation of the deed of sale executed by said vendor."
Equity forbids the attack. "Equity commands that the private respondents, the successors of both the deceased spouses, Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega[,] be not allowed to impugn the sale executed by Flaviano Moreto who indisputably received the consideration of ₱900.00 and which he, including his children, benefitted from the same."
The heirs inherit the vendor's obligation. Article 1458 defines the contract of sale and Article 1495 obliges the vendor "to transfer the ownership of and deliver, as well as warrant the thing which is the object of the sale." Under Article 776 the inheritance "included all the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death," and under Article 1311 the sale "took effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs." "Accordingly, to the private respondents is transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners... and not only one-half thereof. Private respondents must comply with said obligation."
The relief follows the survey. The 781 square metres, "occupied by petitioners for more than 9 years already as of the filing of the complaint in 1961[,] had been re-surveyed by private land surveyor Daniel Aranas," so the petitioners are entitled to segregation from TCT No. T-9843 and to a new certificate in their name.

Doctrine

Dissolution Without Liquidation Creates a Co-Ownership (Art. 1078): On a spouse's death the community property "becomes the property of a community, by operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse."
Measure the Share Against the Whole Mass (Art. 493): A co-owner may validly sell a determinate area so long as it does not exceed his undivided share in the entire co-owned property — even where that property comprises several contiguous lots and the deed names the wrong one.
Partial Factual Partition: Where the co-owner-vendor points out the location and boundaries and the other co-owners raise no "objection, protest or complaint" but "acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession," "a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created," binding the vendor and his heirs.
Estoppel by Laches: "[A] rule of equity which bars a claimant from presenting his claim when, by reason of abandonment and negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same" — nine years of watching houses and a piggery go up next door.
Heirs Inherit the Vendor's Obligation (Arts. 1458 and 1495, with Arts. 776 and 1311): The duty "to deliver in full ownership" the thing sold is transmitted to the vendor's heirs, who cannot recover what their ancestor was bound to deliver — particularly having benefited from the price.
Mutual Error in the Deed Does Not Defeat the Sale: Where a relocation survey shows the parties' "real intention" was a portion of a different lot, the sale is enforced according to that intention.

How this differs from Bailon-Casilao. Both apply Article 493, and the results diverge on arithmetic and conduct. There, sellers holding 2/6 purported to sell 6/6, and the absent co-owners had no knowledge of the sale — so the sale was cut down and laches failed. Here the seller's own half exceeded what he sold, and the co-owners watched the buyers build for nine years — so the sale stood in full and laches barred the attack.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

Relationship to requested topic: DIRECT. Flaviano Moreto sold 781 square metres to the Pamplona spouses in 1952, six years after his wife Monica Maniega died and before the conjugal estate was liquidated, pointing out ground that in fact lay in Lot 1496 though the deed named Lot 1495. Her heirs sued in 1961 to void half the sale. The CFI of Laguna and the Court of Appeals split the sale in half; the Supreme Court upheld it entirely. The central doctrines are that a co-owner's power under Article 493 is measured against his share in the whole co-owned mass — Flaviano's half of three contiguous lots being 1,173 square metres, more than the 781 he sold — and that by pointing out the boundaries without objection from the other co-owners, "a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created."

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts

Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega, husband and wife, acquired during their marriage the adjacent lots Nos. 1495, 4545 and 1496 of the Calamba Friar Land Estate, Calamba, Laguna — 781, 544 and 1,021 square metres — titled in the name of "Flaviano Moreto, married to Monica Maniega."
They had six children: Ursulo (d. 24 May 1959), Marta (d. 30 April 1938), La Paz (d. 17 July 1954), Alipio (d. 30 June 1943), Pablo (d. 25 April 1942, without issue) and Leandro, whose heirs are the private respondents.
On 6 May 1946, Monica Maniega died intestate in Calamba, Laguna.
On 30 July 1952, "more than six (6) years after the death of his wife," and "without the consent of the heirs of his said deceased wife" and "before any liquidation of the conjugal partnership... could be effected," Flaviano Moreto executed a deed of absolute sale in favour of Geminiano Pamplona, married to Apolonia Onte, covering lot No. 1495 for ₱900.00. TCT No. 14570 was cancelled and TCT No. T-5671 issued to the buyers.
After the sale, the Pamplonas "constructed their house on the eastern part of lot 1496 as Flaviano Moreto, at the time of the sale, pointed to it as the land which he sold"; shortly after, their son Rafael Pamplona "also built his house within lot 1496 about one meter from its boundary with the adjoining lot."
"The vendor Flaviano Moreto and the vendee Geminiano Pamplona thought all the time that the portion of 781 square meters which was the subject matter of their sale transaction was No. 1495," though in truth it was "a part of lot No. 1496."
From 1956 to 1960 the Pamplonas "enlarged their house and they even constructed a piggery corral at the back of their said house about one and one-half meters from the eastern boundary of lot 1496."
On 12 August 1956, Flaviano Moreto died intestate.
In 1961 the plaintiffs demanded that the defendants vacate, contending that Flaviano had no right to sell property of the conjugal partnership after Monica's death without the heirs' consent. On refusal, the heirs sued (complaint filed 25 July 1961) to annul the deed as to one half, to be declared owners of that half, to redeem the other half "[a]fter payment of the other half of the purchase price," to eject the defendants, and for damages and ₱120.00 a year from August 1958.
The defendants claimed the sale valid, "the lot sold is registered in the name of Flaviano Moreto and they are purchasers believing in good faith that the vendor was the sole owner of the lot sold."
"After a relocation of lots 1495, 1496 and 4545 made by agreement of the parties, it was found out that there was mutual error": the deed recited Lot 1495 but "the real intention of the parties is that it was a portion consisting of 781 square meters of lot No. 1496." The re-survey was made by private land surveyor Daniel Aranas.
The Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch I at Biñan declared the deed "null and void as regards the 390.5 square meters," valid as to the other 390.5, ordered segregation of the eastern half, cancelled TCT No. 5671, and directed new titles to both parties, with costs against the defendants. The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 35962-R) affirmed.
On 31 March 1980, the Supreme Court affirmed with modification, upholding the sale in full.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioners (Cornelio and Apolonia Pamplona, et al.)

Petitioners maintained the sale was valid, the lot being registered in Flaviano's name and they being "purchasers believing in good faith that the vendor was the sole owner." They pointed out that the three lots — 1495 (781 sq m), 1496 (1,021 sq m) and 4545 (544 sq m) — total 2,346 square metres and are contiguous, so that Flaviano's pro indiviso half exceeded the area sold.

B. Private Respondents (Heirs of Monica Maniega and Flaviano Moreto)

Respondents sought a declaration that the deed was null as to one half, that they own that half, and a right to redeem the other half on paying half the price, plus ejectment, damages and ₱120.00 a year from August 1958 — on the ground that the property was conjugal and Monica was already dead when Flaviano sold without their consent.

C. Common Ground

The relocation survey was made "by agreement of the parties," and both sides accepted its finding of mutual error as to which lot was sold. That the three lots abut one another "is not disputed by private respondents."

IV. Issues

A. MAIN ISSUE

"[W]hether under the facts and circumstances duly established by the evidence, petitioners are entitled to the full ownership of the property in litigation, or only one-half of the same."

V. Ruling / Disposition

A. MAIN ISSUE

Full ownership. The conjugal partnership having dissolved in 1946 and never been liquidated, "the estate became the property of a community between the surviving husband... and his children... in the concept of a co-ownership", so Article 493 applies. The three contiguous lots "constitute one big land" of 2,346 square metres, and "since Flaviano Moreto was entitled to one-half pro indiviso of the entire land area or 1,173 sq. meters as his share, he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share... Indeed, there was still a remainder of some 392 sq. meters belonging to him at the time of the sale." The Court therefore "reject[s] respondent Court's ruling that the sale was valid as to one-half and invalid as to the other half." Besides, "a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created" when the vendor "pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners"; the heirs are barred by estoppel by laches after "over nine (9) years" of silence as neighbours; and as the vendor's successors they inherit his obligation "to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sq. meters".

"WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in the sense that the sale made and executed by Flaviano Moreto in favor of the petitioners-vendees is hereby declared legal and valid in its entirety. Petitioners are hereby declared owners in full ownership of the 781 sq. meters at the eastern portion of Lot 1496 now occupied by said petitioners and whereon their houses and piggery coral stand. The Register of Deeds of Laguna is hereby ordered to segregate the area of 781 sq. meters from Certificate of Title No. 9843 and to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title to the petitioners covering the segregated area of 781 sq. meters. No costs. SO ORDERED."

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines

A. Ratio Decidendi

Dissolution. "There is no question that when the petitioners purchased the property on July 30, 1952... his wife Monica Maniega had already been dead six years before... Hence, the conjugal partnership of the spouses Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega had already been dissolved."
No liquidation. "The records show that the conjugal estate had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and divided by the heirs thereto in accordance with law"; there were no settlement proceedings, "[n]either was there an extra-judicial partition between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse nor was an ordinary action for partition brought."
A co-ownership resulted. "Accordingly, the estate became the property of a community between the surviving husband, Flaviano Moreto, and his children with the deceased Monica Maniega in the concept of a co-ownership." Per Marigsa v. Macabuntoc, the community property on dissolution "becomes the property of a community, by operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse"; per Prades v. Tecson, the husband's power to sell as administrator "can be waived in favor of the children, with the result of bringing about a conventional ownership in common."
Estoppel by laches. The buildings "stood on the land from 1952 up to the filing of the complaint... or a period of over nine (9) years," during which the respondents "lived as neighbors to the petitioner-vendees, yet lifted no finger to question the occupation, possession and ownership of the land." "Estoppel by laches is a rule of equity which bars a claimant from presenting his claim when, by reason of abandonment and negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same."
Article 493 applied to the whole mass. The three lots "are contiguous with one another" and "constitute one big land," so "at the time of the sale, the co-ownership constituted or covered these three lots adjacent to each other"; Flaviano's half was 1,173 square metres, and "he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share."
The half-and-half ruling rejected. "We reject respondent Court's ruling that the sale was valid as to one-half and invalid as to the other half for the very simple reason that Flaviano Moreto, the vendor, had the legal right to more than 781 sq. meters of the communal estate, a title which he could dispose, alienate in favor of the vendees-petitioners."
Partial factual partition. "We agree with the petitioner that there was a partial partition of the co-ownership when at the time of the sale Flaviano Moreto pointed out the area and location of the 781 sq. meters sold... The title may be pro indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners, on the contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession, We rule that a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created, and barred not only the vendor... but also his heirs."
Equity. "Equity commands that the private respondents... be not allowed to impugn the sale executed by Flaviano Moreto who indisputably received the consideration of ₱900.00 and which he, including his children, benefitted from the same."
The inherited obligation. Articles 1458 and 1495, with Article 776 (the inheritance "included all the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death") and Article 1311 (the sale "took effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs"): "Accordingly, to the private respondents is transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners... and not only one-half thereof. Private respondents must comply with said obligation."
Relief. The area "had been re-surveyed by private land surveyor Daniel Aranas," so petitioners "are entitled to a segregation of the area from Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9843 covering Lot 1496 and... to the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in their name based on the relocation survey."

B. Doctrines/Rules

Unliquidated Conjugal Estate Becomes a Co-Ownership (Art. 1078).
The Seller's Share Is Measured Against the Entire Mass (Art. 493): Contiguous lots co-owned together form one property for this purpose, and a sale within the seller's total share is valid in full.
Partial Factual Partition (Art. 494): Pointing out location and boundaries, plus the co-owners' acquiescence in the building and occupation, terminates the co-ownership pro tanto and binds the vendor's heirs.
Estoppel by Laches: Nine years of silence while houses and a corral rose next door bars the claim.
Heirs Inherit the Vendor's Duty (Arts. 1458, 1495, 776, 1311): They must deliver in full what their predecessor sold.
Mutual Error Yields to Real Intention: A relocation survey establishing what the parties actually dealt with governs over the lot number recited in the deed.

C. Limitations/Exceptions

The result depends on the lots being contiguous and co-owned as one mass; had lot 1496 been held under a separate co-ownership, the seller's share in that lot would have been the ceiling.
The partial factual partition turns on the other co-owners' acquiescence. Where co-owners are absent and ignorant of the sale — as in Bailon-Casilao — no such partition arises and laches does not run.
Prades v. Tecson preserves the qualification that a purchaser with knowledge of a conventional community "will acquire only the undivided interest of those members of the family who join in the act of conveyance."

D. Topic Integration

The relationship is DIRECT.
On "Nature of right of co-owner before partition," this case supplies the generous application of Article 493: the co-owner's right is real and disposable now, not merely a claim to be resolved at partition, and a sale within his aliquot share is good in full.
Read it immediately after Bailon-Casilao, which is the restrictive application. The two together give the whole rule: the sale binds the co-ownership up to the seller's share, no more and — this case insists — no less.
The idea to carry forward is partition in fact. It recurs across the chapter — by deeds in Si, by the ancestor's designation in Heirs of Cabal, by the pointing-out of boundaries here — and each time the effect is the same: the portion leaves the community, and later claims of co-ownership over it fail.

VII. Separate Opinions

NOT IN RECORD. The decision was penned by Justice Guerrero, with Justices Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera concurring.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Civil Code

Article 493, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title III (Co-Ownership)

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 the 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. (399)

Why it is cited here

The article, applied here in a way worth studying because it cuts the other way from Bailon-Casilao. "Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part... and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it... But the effect of the alienation or the 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."

In Bailon-Casilao the sellers held 2/6 and purported to sell 6/6, so the sale was cut down. Here the arithmetic runs the other way. Flaviano owned half of a co-owned mass of 2,346 square metres across three contiguous lots — 1,173 square metres — and sold only 781, leaving "a remainder of some 392 sq. meters belonging to him at the time of the sale." Nothing needed cutting down.

The Court's rejection of the lower courts is therefore not an exception to Article 493 but an application of it: "We reject respondent Court's ruling that the sale was valid as to one-half and invalid as to the other half for the very simple reason that Flaviano Moreto, the vendor, had the legal right to more than 781 sq. meters of the communal estate."

The lesson: measure the seller's share against the whole co-ownership, not against the parcel the deed happens to name.

Civil Code

Article 1078, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book III (Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership), Title IV (Succession), Chapter 4 (Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Successions), Subsection 1 (Partition)

Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased. (n)

Why it is cited here

How the co-ownership arose. On Monica's death in 1946 the conjugal partnership dissolved, but the estate "had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and divided" — no settlement proceedings, "[n]either was there an extra-judicial partition... nor was an ordinary action for partition brought."

"Accordingly, the estate became the property of a community between the surviving husband, Flaviano Moreto, and his children with the deceased Monica Maniega in the concept of a co-ownership." The community property "ceases to belong to the legal partnership and becomes the property of a community, by operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse."

Prades v. Tecson adds the qualification that matters: although a surviving husband as administrator "has authority to sell the property without the concurrence of the children of the marriage, nevertheless this power can be waived in favor of the children, with the result of bringing about a conventional ownership in common" — and a purchaser with notice of that changed status "will acquire only the undivided interest of those members of the family who join in the act of conveyance."

Civil Code

Article 1458, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title VI (Sales), Chapter 1 (Nature and Form of the Contract)

By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.

A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (1445a)

Why it is cited here

The obligation the heirs inherit, which is the second and independent ground of the ruling. "By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing," and by Article 1495 "[t]he vendor is bound to transfer the ownership of and deliver, as well as warrant the thing which is the object of the sale."

Under Article 776 the inheritance "included all the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death," and under Article 1311 the sale "took effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs."

Hence "to the private respondents is transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners (which was the original obligation of their predecessor Flaviano Moreto) and not only one-half thereof."

This is the trap for heirs who attack their ancestor's sale: as his successors they step into his shoes as vendor, and cannot recover what he was bound to deliver — the more so where he "indisputably received the consideration of ₱900.00 and which he, including his children, benefitted from."

Civil Code

Article 494, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title III (Co-Ownership)

No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.

Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement.

A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years.

Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.

No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. (400a)

Why it is cited here

The article whose partition can happen in fact as well as in form. A co-owner may demand partition at any time; but nothing requires that a partition be judicial or even written.

The Court finds one here on conduct alone: "there was a partial partition of the co-ownership when at the time of the sale Flaviano Moreto pointed out the area and location of the 781 sq. meters sold," on which the buyers and their son built houses and a piggery corral.

The elements the Court relies on are worth listing, because they are what a student must look for: the co-owner pointed out the location, indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected, and the other co-owners raised no "objection, protest or complaint" but "acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession." On those facts "a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created."

Compare Si v. Court of Appeals, where the partition was documentary (three technically described deeds), and Heirs of Cabal, where it was the ancestor's own act of designation. All three reach the same place: a portion concretely determined is outside the community.

Cited laws & provisions

Article 493, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title III (Co-Ownership)

Why it is cited here

The lesson: measure the seller's share against the whole co-ownership, not against the parcel the deed happens to name.

Full entry below ↓

Article 1078, Civil Code

Civil Code

Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased. (n)

Why it is cited here

Full entry below ↓

Article 1458, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title VI (Sales), Chapter 1 (Nature and Form of the Contract)

A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (1445a)

Why it is cited here

Full entry below ↓

Article 494, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title III (Co-Ownership)

No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.

Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement.

A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years.

Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.

No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. (400a)

Why it is cited here

The article whose partition can happen in fact as well as in form. A co-owner may demand partition at any time; but nothing requires that a partition be judicial or even written.

Full entry below ↓

Facts

Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega were husband and wife, and during their marriage acquired adjacent lots Nos. 1495, 4545 and 1496 of the Calamba Friar Land Estate in Calamba, Laguna, of 781, 544 and 1,021 square metres respectively, titled to "Flaviano Moreto, married to Monica Maniega." That the three lots are contiguous is the fact that decides the case — "the three lots constitute one big land. They are not separate properties located in different places but they abut each other," so the co-ownership covered all 2,346 square metres.
They had six children — Ursulo, Marta, La Paz, Alipio, Pablo and Leandro — all of whom predeceased the suit or are represented in it by their own heirs, the private respondents.
On 6 May 1946, Monica Maniega died intestate, dissolving the conjugal partnership. (The estate "had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and divided"; no settlement proceedings were instituted, and there was neither an extrajudicial partition nor an action for partition — which is exactly how a co-ownership arose between Flaviano and his children.)
On 30 July 1952, "more than six (6) years after the death of his wife" and before any liquidation, Flaviano Moreto, without the consent of Monica's heirs, sold to Geminiano Pamplona, married to Apolonia Onte, by deed of absolute sale, lot No. 1495 for ₱900.00; TCT No. 14570 was cancelled and TCT No. T-5671 issued to the Pamplonas.
But the deed named the wrong lot. At the sale Flaviano "pointed to" the eastern part of lot 1496 as the land he was selling, and the Pamplonas built their house there; shortly after, their son Rafael Pamplona built his house within lot 1496 "about one meter from its boundary." "The vendor Flaviano Moreto and the vendee Geminiano Pamplona thought all the time that the portion of 781 square meters which was the subject matter of their sale transaction was No. 1495," when in fact it was part of lot No. 1496 — a mutual error the parties' own relocation survey later confirmed.
From 1956 to 1960 the Pamplonas enlarged their house and built "a piggery corral at the back of their said house about one and one-half meters from the eastern boundary of lot 1496." The pointing-out of boundaries, the fencing and the building — unopposed — are what the Court treats as effecting a partial factual partition.
On 12 August 1956, Flaviano Moreto died intestate.
In 1961 the plaintiffs demanded that the Pamplonas vacate, on the ground that the lot belonged to the conjugal partnership and Monica was already dead when Flaviano sold without the heirs' consent. On refusal, the heirs sued on 25 July 1961 to declare the deed void as to one half, to be declared owners of that half, to redeem the other half "after payment of the other half of the purchase price," to eject the defendants, and for damages and ₱120.00 a year from August 1958. The suit came over nine years after the buyers took possession and built, with the heirs "liv[ing] as neighbors to the petitioner-vendees" throughout — the basis for the Court's finding of estoppel by laches.
The defendants claimed the sale was valid, the lot being registered in Flaviano's name and they being "purchasers believing in good faith that the vendor was the sole owner."
A relocation survey by agreement of the parties, conducted by private land surveyor Daniel Aranas, established "mutual error": though the deed recited lot No. 1495, "the real intention of the parties is that it was a portion consisting of 781 square meters of lot No. 1496 which was the subject matter of their sale transaction."
The CFI of Laguna, Branch I at Biñan declared the deed null and void as to 390.5 square metres and valid as to the other 390.5, ordered a survey segregating the eastern half, cancelled TCT No. 5671, and ordered new titles issued to both sides. The Court of Appeals affirmed. That half-and-half split is what the Supreme Court rejects.

Issue

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the full ownership of the 781 square metres in litigation, or only one half of it.

Ruling

"WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in the sense that the sale made and executed by Flaviano Moreto in favor of the petitioners-vendees is hereby declared legal and valid in its entirety. Petitioners are hereby declared owners in full ownership of the 781 sq. meters at the eastern portion of Lot 1496 now occupied by said petitioners and whereon their houses and piggery coral stand. The Register of Deeds of Laguna is hereby ordered to segregate the area of 781 sq. meters from Certificate of Title No. 9843 and to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title to the petitioners covering the segregated area of 781 sq. meters. No costs. SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The conjugal partnership was dissolved before the sale. "[W]hen the petitioners purchased the property on July 30, 1952 from Flaviano Moreto for the price of ₱900.00, his wife Monica Maniega had already been dead six years before," so "the conjugal partnership... had already been dissolved."
And it was never liquidated. "The records show that the conjugal estate had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and divided by the heirs thereto in accordance with law." No settlement proceedings were instituted, and there was neither an extrajudicial partition nor an action for partition.
So a co-ownership arose. "Accordingly, the estate became the property of a community between the surviving husband, Flaviano Moreto, and his children with the deceased Monica Maniega in the concept of a co-ownership." The community property, on dissolution, "ceases to belong to the legal partnership and becomes the property of a community, by operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse" (Marigsa v. Macabuntoc). Borja v. Addison: "[t]here is no reason in law why the heirs of the deceased wife may not form a partnership with the surviving husband for the management and control of the community property." Prades v. Tecson: the surviving husband's power to sell as administrator "can be waived in favor of the children, with the result of bringing about a conventional ownership in common," and a purchaser with notice "will acquire only the undivided interest of those members of the family who join in the act of conveyance."
Estoppel by laches bars the heirs. The houses and the corral "stood on the land from 1952 up to the filing of the complaint by the private respondents on July 25, 1961, or a period of over nine (9) years. And during said period, the private respondents... lived as neighbors to the petitioner-vendees, yet lifted no finger to question the occupation, possession and ownership of the land purchased by the Pamplonas." "Estoppel by laches is a rule of equity which bars a claimant from presenting his claim when, by reason of abandonment and negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same."
Article 493 is quoted and applied to the whole mass. The three lots "are contiguous with one another as each is bounded on one side by the other," so "the three lots constitute one big land. They are not separate properties located in different places but they abut each other," and "at the time of the sale, the co-ownership constituted or covered these three lots adjacent to each other."
The arithmetic. "[S]ince Flaviano Moreto was entitled to one-half pro indiviso of the entire land area or 1,173 sq. meters as his share, he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share to the Pamplona spouses. Indeed, there was still a remainder of some 392 sq. meters belonging to him at the time of the sale."
Hence the courts below erred. "We reject respondent Court's ruling that the sale was valid as to one-half and invalid as to the other half for the very simple reason that Flaviano Moreto, the vendor, had the legal right to more than 781 sq. meters of the communal estate, a title which he could dispose, alienate in favor of the vendees-petitioners."
A partial factual partition. "We agree with the petitioner that there was a partial partition of the co-ownership when at the time of the sale Flaviano Moreto pointed out the area and location of the 781 sq. meters sold by him to the petitioners-vendees on which the latter built their house and also that whereon Rafael, the son of petitioners likewise erected his house and an adjacent coral for piggery."
Its elements and effect. "The title may be pro indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners, on the contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession, We rule that a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created, and barred not only the vendor, Flaviano Moreto, but also his heirs, the private respondents herein from asserting as against the vendees-petitioners any right or title in derogation of the deed of sale executed by said vendor."
Equity forbids the attack. "Equity commands that the private respondents, the successors of both the deceased spouses, Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega[,] be not allowed to impugn the sale executed by Flaviano Moreto who indisputably received the consideration of ₱900.00 and which he, including his children, benefitted from the same."
The heirs inherit the vendor's obligation. Article 1458 defines the contract of sale and Article 1495 obliges the vendor "to transfer the ownership of and deliver, as well as warrant the thing which is the object of the sale." Under Article 776 the inheritance "included all the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death," and under Article 1311 the sale "took effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs." "Accordingly, to the private respondents is transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners... and not only one-half thereof. Private respondents must comply with said obligation."
The relief follows the survey. The 781 square metres, "occupied by petitioners for more than 9 years already as of the filing of the complaint in 1961[,] had been re-surveyed by private land surveyor Daniel Aranas," so the petitioners are entitled to segregation from TCT No. T-9843 and to a new certificate in their name.

Doctrine

Dissolution Without Liquidation Creates a Co-Ownership (Art. 1078): On a spouse's death the community property "becomes the property of a community, by operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse."
Measure the Share Against the Whole Mass (Art. 493): A co-owner may validly sell a determinate area so long as it does not exceed his undivided share in the entire co-owned property — even where that property comprises several contiguous lots and the deed names the wrong one.
Partial Factual Partition: Where the co-owner-vendor points out the location and boundaries and the other co-owners raise no "objection, protest or complaint" but "acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession," "a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created," binding the vendor and his heirs.
Estoppel by Laches: "[A] rule of equity which bars a claimant from presenting his claim when, by reason of abandonment and negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same" — nine years of watching houses and a piggery go up next door.
Heirs Inherit the Vendor's Obligation (Arts. 1458 and 1495, with Arts. 776 and 1311): The duty "to deliver in full ownership" the thing sold is transmitted to the vendor's heirs, who cannot recover what their ancestor was bound to deliver — particularly having benefited from the price.
Mutual Error in the Deed Does Not Defeat the Sale: Where a relocation survey shows the parties' "real intention" was a portion of a different lot, the sale is enforced according to that intention.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts

Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega, husband and wife, acquired during their marriage the adjacent lots Nos. 1495, 4545 and 1496 of the Calamba Friar Land Estate, Calamba, Laguna — 781, 544 and 1,021 square metres — titled in the name of "Flaviano Moreto, married to Monica Maniega."
They had six children: Ursulo (d. 24 May 1959), Marta (d. 30 April 1938), La Paz (d. 17 July 1954), Alipio (d. 30 June 1943), Pablo (d. 25 April 1942, without issue) and Leandro, whose heirs are the private respondents.
On 6 May 1946, Monica Maniega died intestate in Calamba, Laguna.
On 30 July 1952, "more than six (6) years after the death of his wife," and "without the consent of the heirs of his said deceased wife" and "before any liquidation of the conjugal partnership... could be effected," Flaviano Moreto executed a deed of absolute sale in favour of Geminiano Pamplona, married to Apolonia Onte, covering lot No. 1495 for ₱900.00. TCT No. 14570 was cancelled and TCT No. T-5671 issued to the buyers.
After the sale, the Pamplonas "constructed their house on the eastern part of lot 1496 as Flaviano Moreto, at the time of the sale, pointed to it as the land which he sold"; shortly after, their son Rafael Pamplona "also built his house within lot 1496 about one meter from its boundary with the adjoining lot."
"The vendor Flaviano Moreto and the vendee Geminiano Pamplona thought all the time that the portion of 781 square meters which was the subject matter of their sale transaction was No. 1495," though in truth it was "a part of lot No. 1496."
From 1956 to 1960 the Pamplonas "enlarged their house and they even constructed a piggery corral at the back of their said house about one and one-half meters from the eastern boundary of lot 1496."
On 12 August 1956, Flaviano Moreto died intestate.
In 1961 the plaintiffs demanded that the defendants vacate, contending that Flaviano had no right to sell property of the conjugal partnership after Monica's death without the heirs' consent. On refusal, the heirs sued (complaint filed 25 July 1961) to annul the deed as to one half, to be declared owners of that half, to redeem the other half "[a]fter payment of the other half of the purchase price," to eject the defendants, and for damages and ₱120.00 a year from August 1958.
The defendants claimed the sale valid, "the lot sold is registered in the name of Flaviano Moreto and they are purchasers believing in good faith that the vendor was the sole owner of the lot sold."
"After a relocation of lots 1495, 1496 and 4545 made by agreement of the parties, it was found out that there was mutual error": the deed recited Lot 1495 but "the real intention of the parties is that it was a portion consisting of 781 square meters of lot No. 1496." The re-survey was made by private land surveyor Daniel Aranas.
The Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch I at Biñan declared the deed "null and void as regards the 390.5 square meters," valid as to the other 390.5, ordered segregation of the eastern half, cancelled TCT No. 5671, and directed new titles to both parties, with costs against the defendants. The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 35962-R) affirmed.
On 31 March 1980, the Supreme Court affirmed with modification, upholding the sale in full.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioners (Cornelio and Apolonia Pamplona, et al.)

B. Private Respondents (Heirs of Monica Maniega and Flaviano Moreto)

C. Common Ground

IV. Issues

A. MAIN ISSUE

"[W]hether under the facts and circumstances duly established by the evidence, petitioners are entitled to the full ownership of the property in litigation, or only one-half of the same."

V. Ruling / Disposition

A. MAIN ISSUE

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines

A. Ratio Decidendi

Dissolution. "There is no question that when the petitioners purchased the property on July 30, 1952... his wife Monica Maniega had already been dead six years before... Hence, the conjugal partnership of the spouses Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega had already been dissolved."
No liquidation. "The records show that the conjugal estate had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and divided by the heirs thereto in accordance with law"; there were no settlement proceedings, "[n]either was there an extra-judicial partition between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse nor was an ordinary action for partition brought."
A co-ownership resulted. "Accordingly, the estate became the property of a community between the surviving husband, Flaviano Moreto, and his children with the deceased Monica Maniega in the concept of a co-ownership." Per Marigsa v. Macabuntoc, the community property on dissolution "becomes the property of a community, by operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse"; per Prades v. Tecson, the husband's power to sell as administrator "can be waived in favor of the children, with the result of bringing about a conventional ownership in common."
Estoppel by laches. The buildings "stood on the land from 1952 up to the filing of the complaint... or a period of over nine (9) years," during which the respondents "lived as neighbors to the petitioner-vendees, yet lifted no finger to question the occupation, possession and ownership of the land." "Estoppel by laches is a rule of equity which bars a claimant from presenting his claim when, by reason of abandonment and negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same."
Article 493 applied to the whole mass. The three lots "are contiguous with one another" and "constitute one big land," so "at the time of the sale, the co-ownership constituted or covered these three lots adjacent to each other"; Flaviano's half was 1,173 square metres, and "he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share."
The half-and-half ruling rejected. "We reject respondent Court's ruling that the sale was valid as to one-half and invalid as to the other half for the very simple reason that Flaviano Moreto, the vendor, had the legal right to more than 781 sq. meters of the communal estate, a title which he could dispose, alienate in favor of the vendees-petitioners."
Partial factual partition. "We agree with the petitioner that there was a partial partition of the co-ownership when at the time of the sale Flaviano Moreto pointed out the area and location of the 781 sq. meters sold... The title may be pro indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners, on the contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession, We rule that a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created, and barred not only the vendor... but also his heirs."
Equity. "Equity commands that the private respondents... be not allowed to impugn the sale executed by Flaviano Moreto who indisputably received the consideration of ₱900.00 and which he, including his children, benefitted from the same."
The inherited obligation. Articles 1458 and 1495, with Article 776 (the inheritance "included all the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death") and Article 1311 (the sale "took effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs"): "Accordingly, to the private respondents is transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners... and not only one-half thereof. Private respondents must comply with said obligation."
Relief. The area "had been re-surveyed by private land surveyor Daniel Aranas," so petitioners "are entitled to a segregation of the area from Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9843 covering Lot 1496 and... to the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in their name based on the relocation survey."

B. Doctrines/Rules

Unliquidated Conjugal Estate Becomes a Co-Ownership (Art. 1078).
The Seller's Share Is Measured Against the Entire Mass (Art. 493): Contiguous lots co-owned together form one property for this purpose, and a sale within the seller's total share is valid in full.
Partial Factual Partition (Art. 494): Pointing out location and boundaries, plus the co-owners' acquiescence in the building and occupation, terminates the co-ownership pro tanto and binds the vendor's heirs.
Estoppel by Laches: Nine years of silence while houses and a corral rose next door bars the claim.
Heirs Inherit the Vendor's Duty (Arts. 1458, 1495, 776, 1311): They must deliver in full what their predecessor sold.
Mutual Error Yields to Real Intention: A relocation survey establishing what the parties actually dealt with governs over the lot number recited in the deed.

C. Limitations/Exceptions

The result depends on the lots being contiguous and co-owned as one mass; had lot 1496 been held under a separate co-ownership, the seller's share in that lot would have been the ceiling.
The partial factual partition turns on the other co-owners' acquiescence. Where co-owners are absent and ignorant of the sale — as in Bailon-Casilao — no such partition arises and laches does not run.
Prades v. Tecson preserves the qualification that a purchaser with knowledge of a conventional community "will acquire only the undivided interest of those members of the family who join in the act of conveyance."

D. Topic Integration

The relationship is DIRECT.
On "Nature of right of co-owner before partition," this case supplies the generous application of Article 493: the co-owner's right is real and disposable now, not merely a claim to be resolved at partition, and a sale within his aliquot share is good in full.
Read it immediately after Bailon-Casilao, which is the restrictive application. The two together give the whole rule: the sale binds the co-ownership up to the seller's share, no more and — this case insists — no less.
The idea to carry forward is partition in fact. It recurs across the chapter — by deeds in Si, by the ancestor's designation in Heirs of Cabal, by the pointing-out of boundaries here — and each time the effect is the same: the portion leaves the community, and later claims of co-ownership over it fail.

VII. Separate Opinions

NOT IN RECORD. The decision was penned by Justice Guerrero, with Justices Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera concurring.