Tabasondra vs. Constantino

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 813 07/03/2019, 1*29 PM
G.R. No. 196403. December 7, 2016.*
ARSENIO TABASONDRA, FERNANDO TABASONDRA,

CORNELIO TABASONDRA, JR., MIRASOL
TABASONDRA-MARIANO, FAUSTA TABASONDRA-
TAPACIO, GUILLERMO TABASONDRA, MYRASOL
TABASONDRA-ROMERO, and MARLENE
TABASONDRA-MANIQUIL, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES
CONRADO CONSTANTINO and TARCILA
**
TABASONDRA-CONSTANTINO, PACITA ARELLANO-
TABASONDRA and HEIRS OF SEBASTIAN
TABASONDRA, respondents.
Civil Law; Co-ownership; The Supreme Court (SC) upholds the

right of Valentina and Valeriana to thereby alienate their pro
indiviso shares to Sebastian and Tarcila even without the knowledge
or consent of their co-owner Cornelio because the alienation covered
the disposition of only their respective interests in the common
property.·We uphold the right of Valentina and Valeriana to
thereby alienate their pro indiviso shares to Sebastian and Tarcila
even without the knowledge or consent of their co-owner Cornelio
because the alienation covered the disposition of only their
respective interests in the common property. According to Article
493 of the Civil Code, each co-owner „shall have the full ownership
of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he
may therefore alien-
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169569fb6104099b400003600fb002c009e/p/AUD139/?username=Guest Page 1 of 17
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
** Also spelled as Tarsila in some parts of the record, including the
decision under review.
241
VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 241

Tabasondra vs. Constantino
ate, 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.‰ Hence, the
petitioners as the successors-in-interest of Cornelio could not
validly assail the alienation by Valentina and Valeriana of their
shares in favor of the respondents.
Same; Same; Partition; According to Vda. de Daffon v. Court of
Appeals, 387 SCRA 427 (2002), an action for partition is at once an
action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and
conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved.·We
underscore that this was a case for partition and accounting.
According to Vda. de Daffon v. Court of Appeals, 387 SCRA 427
(2002), an action for partition is at once an action for declaration of
co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate
portion of the properties involved. If the trial court should find after
trial the existence of co-ownership among the parties, it may and
should order the partition of the properties in the same action.
Same; Same; Same; Should the parties be unable to agree on the
partition, the next step for the Regional Trial Court (RTC) will be to
appoint not more than three (3) competent and disinterested persons
as commissioners to make the partition, and to command such
commissioners to set off to each party-in-interest the part and
proportion of the property as directed in this decision.·Should the
parties be unable to agree on the partition, the next step for the
RTC will be to appoint not more than three competent and
disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, and

to command such commissioners to set off to each party-in-interest
the part and proportion of the property as directed in this decision.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Romeo T. Saavedra for petitioners.
242
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

BERSAMIN, J.:
This case for partition and accounting concerns a

property owned in common, and focuses on the right of two
of the co-owners to alienate their shares before the actual
division of the property.
The Case
Under appeal is the adverse decision promulgated on

November 30, 2010,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA)
modified the judgment rendered on September 22, 2008 by
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, in Tarlac City
ordering the partition of all the three parcels of land owned
in common among the parties.2 The modification by the CA,
which expressly recognized the alienation by the two co-
owners of their shares, consisted in limiting the partition of
the property owned in common to only the unsold portion
with an area of 33,450.66 square meters.
Antecedents
The parties herein were the children of the late Cornelio

Tabasondra from two marriages. The respondents Tarcila
Tabasondra-Constantino and the late Sebastian
Tabasondra were the children of Cornelio by his first wife,

Severina; the petitioners, namely: Arsenio Tabasondra,
Fernando Tabasondra, Cornelio Tabasondra, Jr., Mirasol
Tabasondra-Mariano, Fausta Tabasondra-Tapacio, Myrasol
Tabasondra-Romero, Marlene Tabasondra-Maniquil, and
Guillermo Tabasondra, were children of Cornelio by his
second wife, Sotera.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 74-84, penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro,

with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino (retired) and Ruben C.
Ayson (retired), concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 85-93, penned by Presiding Judge Domingo C. San Jose,
Jr.
243
VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 243

The CA summarized the undisputed factual findings and

procedural antecedents as follows:
Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana, all surnamed Tabasondra,

were siblings. They were also the registered owners of the three (3)
parcels of land located at Dalayap, Tarlac City, identified as Lot No.
2536, containing an area of seventy-seven thousand one hundred
and forty-seven (77,147) sq. m.; Lot No. 3155, with an area of
thirteen thousand six hundred fifty-nine (13,659) sq. m.; and Lot
No. 3159, with an area of nine thousand five hundred forty-six
(9,546) sq. m., covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
106012.
xxxx
Cornelio died on March 15, 1991, while Valentina and Valeriana
both died single on August 19, 1990 and August 4, 1998,
respectively. They all died intestate and without partitioning the
property covered by TCT No. 106012. Thus, the Plaintiffs-Appellees
and the Defendants-Appellants, as descendants of Cornelio,
possessed and occupied the property.

The Controversy:
On August 22, 2002, the Plaintiffs-Appellees filed the complaint
below against the Defendants-Appellants. In essence, they claimed
that the parcels of land are owned in common by them and the
Defendants-Appellants but the latter does not give them any share
in the fruits thereof. Hence, they asked for partition but the
Defendants-Appellants refused without valid reasons. They
maintained that they tried to amicably settle the dispute before the
Lupon, but to no avail. Thus, their filing of the suit praying that the
subject land be partitioned, that new titles be issued in their
respective names, that the Defendants-Appellants be ordered to
render an accounting on the fruits thereon, and that such fruits also
be partitioned.
In their Answer, the Defendants-Appellants averred that they do
not object to a partition provided
244

that the same should be made only with respect to CornelioÊs share.
They contended that they already own the shares of Valentina and
Valeriana in the subject land by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale
that the said sisters executed in their favor on August 18, 1982.
Moreover, they alleged that the Plaintiffs-Appellees are the ones
who should account for the profits of the property because it is the
latter who enjoy the fruits thereof. By way of counterclaim, they,
thus, prayed that the Plaintiffs-Appellees be ordered to render an
accounting and to pay for damages.
After the issues were joined and the pretrial conference was
conducted, a full-blown trial followed in view of the partiesÊ failure
to settle amicably.
On September 22, 2008, the RTC rendered the assailed
disposition, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing considerations,

judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering
[the] partition of the three (3) parcels of land covered by TCT

No. 16012 among the compulsory and legal heirs of Cornelio,
Valentina[,] and Valeriana, all surnamed Tabasondra. Sotero
Duenas Tabasondra shall be entitled to 3,040 square meters
while plaintiffs and defendants shall be entitled to 6,690
square meters each.
SO ORDERED.3
Dissatisfied, the respondents appealed the judgment of

the RTC to the CA, assigning the following as the
reversible errors, to wit:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT A- [sic] QUO GRAVELY ERRED
AND COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT
CONSIDERING AND APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 75-77.
245
VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 245

EXECUTED BY THE DECEASED VALENTINA TABASONDRA

AND VALERIANA TABASONDRA, IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS
TARCILA TABASONDRA AND SEBASTIAN TABASONDRA, WAS
VALID AND SUBSISTING AT THE TIME THE COURT
CONSIDERED IT TO HAVE NO VALID LEGAL FORCE AND
EFFECT[.]
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT A- [sic] QUO GRAVELY ERRED
AND COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ORDERING FOR
THE PARTITION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITHOUT
ANY LEGAL AND VALID GROUNDS[.]4
On November 30, 2010, the CA promulgated the decision

under review,5 disposing:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed

disposition is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the
partition and the accounting is ordered to be made only with respect
to a thirty-three thousand four hundred fifty point sixty-six
(33,450.66) sq. m. portion of the property. With costs.
SO ORDERED.6
The petitioners moved for reconsideration,7 but the CA

denied their motion on April 4, 2011.8
Hence, this appeal.
_______________
4 Id., at p. 97.
5 Id., at pp. 74-84.
6 Id., at p. 83.
7 Id., at pp. 30-43.
8 Id., at pp. 28-29.
246

Issues
The petitioners submit in support of their appeal:
1. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OR LACK
OF JURISDICTION IN SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE NEW
MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE RAISED IN MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION;
2. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS IN SUMMARILY
DISMISSING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS RENEGED IN ITS DUTY TO
RESOLVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES OF SUBSTANCE IN A
WAY NOT PROBABLY IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR APPLICABLE

DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT;
3. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN
DECLARING THE QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE VALID AND
IN SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS[Ê]
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RAISING NEW
ARGUMENTS AND MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE NOT RAISED IN
THE APPEAL BY DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ARE
CONTRARY TO LAW, JURISPRUDENCE, ADMISSIONS OF
FACTS/TESTIMONY OF TARCILA TABASONDRA, ONLY
WITNESS FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS AT
THE TRIAL;
4. THAT SUCH COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS OR DEPARTURE THEREFROM IN EXERCISING
OR FAILING TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
CERTAINLY CALLS FOR THE EXERCISE BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF ITS POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW TO AFFORD
COMPLETE RE-
247
VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 247

LIEF TO PARTIES IN THIS CASE AND TO AVOID

MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS.9
In other words, did the CA correctly order the partition

and accounting with respect to only 33,450.66 square
meters of the property registered under TCT No. 10612?
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.

There is no question that the total area of the three lots
owned in common by Cornelio, Valentina and Valeriana
was 100,352 square meters; and that each of the co-owners
had the right to one-third of such total area.

It was established that Valentina and Valeriana
executed the Deed of Absolute Sale,10 whereby they
specifically disposed of their shares in the property
registered under TCT No. 10612 in favor of Sebastian
Tabasondra and Tarcila Tabasondra as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN

THOUSAND PESOS (10,000.00), Philippine Currency, to us in
hand paid, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged in full to our
entire satisfaction, by SEBASTIAN TABASONDRA and TARCILA
TABASONDRA, married to Pacita Arellano and Conrado
Constantino, respectively, both of legal ages, Filipinos, and
residents of Dalayap, Tarlac, Tarlac, we do hereby SELL, CEDE,
TRANSFER and CONVEY, by way of ABSOLUTE SALE, unto the
said Sebastian Tabasondra and Tarcila Tabasondra, their heirs and
assigns, all our shares, rights, interests and participations in
the above described parcel of land free from liens and
incumbrances. That we hereby certify that the herein VENDEES
are the actual tillers or tenants of the above
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 14-15.

10 Records, p. 81.
248

described parcel of land subject matter of this deed of absolute sale

and, as such, have the prior right of preemption and redemption,
under the Land Reform Code. (Bold underscoring supplied for
emphasis)
We uphold the right of Valentina and Valeriana to

thereby alienate their pro indiviso shares to Sebastian and
Tarcila even without the knowledge or consent of their co-
owner Cornelio because the alienation covered the

disposition of only their respective interests in the common
property. According to Article 493 of the Civil Code, 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.‰ Hence, the
petitioners as the successors-in-interest of Cornelio could
not validly assail the alienation by Valentina and Valeriana
of their shares in favor of the respondents.11
Accordingly, the Court declares the following disposition

by the CA to be correct and in full accord with law, to wit:
x x x [T]here is no dispute that the subject property was owned

in common by the siblings Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeria.
Corollarily, the records at bench glaringly show that the
genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale
executed by Valeriana and Valentina in favor of the Defendants-
Appellants was not rebutted by the Plaintiffs-Appellees. A fortiori,
such deed is prima facie evidence that a contract of sale was,
indeed, entered into and consummated between Valeriana and
Valentina as sellers and the Defendants-Appellants as vendors.
_______________
11 Torres, Jr. v. Lapinid, G.R. No. 187987, November 26, 2014, 742
SCRA 646, 652.
249
VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 249

The foregoing facts, juxtaposed with the laws and the
jurisprudential precepts mentioned elsewhere herein, lead to no

other conclusion but that the sale by Valeriana and Valentina of
their pro indiviso shares in favor of the Defendants-Appellants is
valid. As enunciated by the Supreme Court in Alejandrino v. CA,
et al.:
x x x Under a co-ownership, the ownership of an

undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.
Each co-owner of property which is held pro indiviso
exercises his rights over the whole property and may
use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than
that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners.
The underlying rationale is that until a division is made, the
respective share of each cannot be determined and every co-
owner exercises, together with his co-participants, joint
ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use
and enjoyment of the same.
Although the right of a heir over the property of the
decedent is inchoate as long as the estate has not been
fully settled and partitioned, the law allows a co-owner
to exercise rights of ownership over such inchoate right.
Thus, the Civil Code provides:
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall

have the full ownership of his part
and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining theret o, and he may
therefore aliena te, 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
250

the portion which may be allotted to
him in the division upon the

termination of the co-ownership.
With respect to properties shared in common by virtue of

inheritance, alienation of a pro indiviso portion thereof is
specifically governed by Article 1088 that provides:
Art. 1088. Should any of the

heirs sell his hereditary rights to a
stranger before the partition, any or
all of the
coheirs may be subrogated to the
rights of the purchaser by
reimbursing him for the price of the
sale, provided they do so within the
period of one month from the time
they were notified in writing of the
sale by the vendor.
In the instant case, Laurencia was within her hereditary

rights in selling her pro indiviso share in Lot No. 2798.
However, because the property had not yet been partitioned in
accordance with the Rules of Court, no particular portion of
the property could be identified as yet and delineated as the
object of the sale. Thus, interpreting Article 493 of the Civil
Code providing that an alienation of a co-owned property
„shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to (the
seller) in the division upon the termination of the co-
ownership,‰ the Court said:
. . . (p)ursuant to this law, a co-

owner has the right to alienate his
pro indiviso share in the co-owned
property even without the consent of
the other co-owners. x x x
251
VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 251

Using the foregoing disquisitions as guidelines, there is no

denying that the RTC erred in granting the complaint and ordering
a partition without qualifying that such should not include the

shares previously pertaining to Valeria and Valentina. Simply put,
since the aggregate area of the subject property is one hundred
thousand three hundred fifty-two (100,352) sq. m., it follows that
Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana each has a share equivalent to
thirty-three thousand four hundred fifty point sixty-six (33,450.66)
sq. m. portion thereof. Accordingly, when Valentina and Valeriana
sold their shares, the Defendants-Appellants became co-owners
with Cornelio. Perforce, upon CornelioÊs death, the only area that
his heirs, that is, the Plaintiffs-Appellees and the Defendants-
Appellants, are entitled to and which may be made subject of
partition is only a thirty-three thousand four hundred fifty point
sixty-six (33,450.66) sq. m. portion of the property.
All told, finding the RTCÊs conclusions to be not in accord with
the law and jurisprudence, necessarily, the same cannot be
sustained.12
As a result of Valentina and ValerianaÊs alienation in

favor of Sebastian and Tarcila of their pro indiviso shares
in the three lots, Sebastian and Tarcila became co-owners
of the 100,352-square-meter property with Cornelio (later
on, with the petitioners who were the successors-in-interest
of Cornelio). In effect, Sebastian and Tarcila were co-
owners of two-thirds of the property, with each of them
having one-third pro indiviso share in the three lots, while
the remaining one-third was co-owned by the heirs of
Cornelio, namely, Sebastian, Tarcila and the petitioners.
Nonetheless, we underscore that this was a case for
partition and accounting. According to Vda. de Daffon v.
Court of Appeals,13 an action for partition is at once an
action for decla-
_______________
12 Rollo, pp. 80-83.

13 G.R. No. 129017, August 20, 2002, 387 SCRA 427.
252

ration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance

of a determinate portion of the properties involved. If the
trial court should find after trial the existence of co-
ownership among the parties, it may and should order the
partition of the properties in the same action.14
Although the CA correctly identified the co-owners of the
three lots, it did not segregate the 100,352-square-meter
property into determinate portions among the several co-
owners. To do so, the CA should have followed the manner
set in Section 11, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 11. The judgment and its effect; copy to be recorded in

registry of deeds.·If actual partition of property is made, the
judgment shall state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate
description, the particular portion of the real estate assigned to
each party, and the effect of the judgment shall be to vest in each
party to the action in severalty the portion of the real estate
assigned to him. x x x x (Bold emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, there is a need to remand the case to the

court of origin for the purpose of identifying and
segregating, by metes and bounds, the specific portions of
the three lots assigned to the co-owners, and to effect the
physical partition of the property in the following
proportions: Tarcila, one-third; the heirs of Sebastian, one-
third; and the petitioners (individually), along with Tarcila
and the heirs of Sebastian (collectively), one-third. That
physical partition was required, but the RTC and the CA
uncharacteristically did not require it. Upon remand,
therefore, the RTC should comply with the express terms of
Section 2, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Section 2. Order for partition, and partition by agreement

thereunder.·If after the trial the court finds that the plaintiff has
the right thereto, it shall order the
_______________
14 Id., at pp. 433-434.
253
VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 253

partition of the real estate among all the parties-in-interest.

Thereupon the parties may, if they are able to agree, make
the partition among themselves by proper instruments of
conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so
agreed upon by all the parties, and such partition, together
with the order of the court confirming the same, shall be
recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the
property is situated. (2a)
A final order decreeing partition and accounting may be appealed
by any party aggrieved thereby. (n)
Should the parties be unable to agree on the partition,

the next step for the RTC will be to appoint not more than
three competent and disinterested persons as
commissioners to make the partition, and to command such
commissioners to set off to each party-in-interest the part
and proportion of the property as directed in this decision.15
Moreover, with the Court having determined that the
petitioners had no right in the two-thirds portion that had
been validly alienated to Sebastian and Tarcila, the
accounting of the fruits shall only involve the one-third
portion of the property inherited from Cornelio. For this
purpose, the RTC shall apply the pertinent provisions of
the Civil Code, particularly Article 500 and Article 1087 of
the Civil Code, viz.:
Article 500. Upon partition, there shall be a mutual accounting

for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made.
Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of
his negligence or fraud. (n)
_______________
15 Section 3, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court states:

Section 3. Commissioners to make partition when parties fail to
agree.·If the parties are unable to agree upon the partition, the court
shall appoint not more than three (3) competent and disinterested
persons as commissioners to make the partition, commanding them to
set off to the plaintiff and to each party-in-interest such part and
proportion of the property as the court shall direct. (3a)
254

Article 1087. In the partition the coheirs shall reimburse one

another for the income and fruits which each one of them may have
received from any property of the estate, for any useful and
necessary expenses made upon such property, and for any damage
thereto through malice or neglect. (1063)
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with

MODIFICATION the decision of the Court of Appeals
promulgated on November 30, 2010 in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
92920 in that the accounting is to be made only with
respect to the fruits of the one-third portion of the property
still under the co-ownership of all the parties; REMANDS
the case to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, in Tarlac
City for further proceedings in accordance with this
decision, and to determine the technical metes and bounds
and description of the proper share of each co-owner of the
property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 10612,
including the improvements thereon, in accordance with
the Civil Code and Rule 69 of the Rules of Court; and
ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-

Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification. Case remanded to
Regional Trial Court of Tarlac, Br. 64.
Notes.·Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no

co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership,
and that each co-owner may demand at any time partition
of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is
concerned. (Arambulo vs. Nolasco, 720 SCRA 95 [2014])
A partition proceeding accords all parties the
opportunity to be heard. (Id.)
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Tabasondra vs. Constantino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tabasondra vs. Constantino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tabasondra vs. Constantino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 813 07/03/2019, 1*29 PM

G.R. No. 196403. December 7, 2016.*

ARSENIO TABASONDRA, FERNANDO TABASONDRA,

Civil Law; Co-ownership; The Supreme Court (SC) upholds the

VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 241

ate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in

disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, and

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

This case for partition and accounting concerns a

Under appeal is the adverse decision promulgated on

The parties herein were the children of the late Cornelio

Tabasondra were the children of Cornelio by his first wife,

1 Rollo, pp. 74-84, penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro,

VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 243

The CA summarized the undisputed factual findings and

Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana, all surnamed Tabasondra,

possessed and occupied the property.

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing considerations,

[the] partition of the three (3) parcels of land covered by TCT

Dissatisfied, the respondents appealed the judgment of

3 Id., at pp. 75-77.

VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 245

EXECUTED BY THE DECEASED VALENTINA TABASONDRA

On November 30, 2010, the CA promulgated the decision

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed

The petitioners moved for reconsideration,7 but the CA

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WAY NOT PROBABLY IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR APPLICABLE

VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 247

LIEF TO PARTIES IN THIS CASE AND TO AVOID

In other words, did the CA correctly order the partition

Ruling of the Court

The appeal lacks merit.

had the right to one-third of such total area.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN

9 Id., at pp. 14-15.

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

described parcel of land subject matter of this deed of absolute sale

We uphold the right of Valentina and Valeriana to

owner Cornelio because the alienation covered the

Accordingly, the Court declares the following disposition

x x x [T]here is no dispute that the subject property was owned

VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 249

The foregoing facts, juxtaposed with the laws and the

jurisprudential precepts mentioned elsewhere herein, lead to no

x x x Under a co-ownership, the ownership of an

Art. 493. Each co-owner shall

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the portion which may be allotted to

him in the division upon the

With respect to properties shared in common by virtue of

Art. 1088. Should any of the

In the instant case, Laurencia was within her hereditary

. . . (p)ursuant to this law, a co-

VOL. 813, DECEMBER 7, 2016 251

Using the foregoing disquisitions as guidelines, there is no

a partition without qualifying that such should not include the