Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

REMAN RECIO,

Petitioner,
-versus
HEIRS OF THE SPOUSES AGUE DO and MARIA ALTAMIRANO, namely: ALEJANDRO,
ADELAIDA,
CATALINA, ALFREDO, FRANCISCO, all surnamed ALTAMIRANO; VIOLETAALTAMIRANO
OLFATO,
and LORETAALTAMIRANO VDA. DE MARALIT and SPOUSES LAURO and MARCELINA
LAJARCA,
Respondents
In 1950s, Nena Recio, the mother of Reman
Recio leased from the Altamirano Family parcel
of land with improvements situated at Esteban
Mayo st. Lipa City. The said parcel of land
covers 89 sq. meters and inherited by the
Altamirano Family from their deceased parents.
On 1998, petitioner claimed that Altamiranos
offered to sell the subject parcel of land to her
for P500, 000. However, the said sale did
materialize at that time to the fault of the
Altamiranos. But there was a second negotiation
between the petitioner and Alejandro who
introduced himself as representative of the other
heirs or a member of the Altamirano Family.
Later, the Altamiranos through Alejandro
entered an oral agrrement with the petioner,. In
view of the said oral contract, the petitioner,
made payments of 110,000 on 1965 as partial
payment and on 1995 Nena Recio again paid
P50,000. Nena Recio paid already a total of
P160, 000. Subsequently, Nena Recio offered in
many instances to pay the remaining balance of
P340,000 but Alejandro Altamirano kept on
avoiding the petitioner. Petitioner demanded
through Alejandro Altimirano Deed of Absolute
Sale in exchange for full payment. On 1997 , the
petitioner filed for specific performance with
damages.
Later the petitioner discovered that the subject
parcel of land has been subsequently sold by
other Altamiranos to the spouses Lajarca. The
petitioner filed an amended complaint of

annulment of the sale between the Spouses


Lajarca and other Altamiranos. Later ,the RTC
declared that the sale between the other
Altamiranos and spouses Lajarca of the subject
parcel of land as null and void. RTC directed the
Altamiranos to execute a Deed Of Absosute Sale
covering the subject parcel of land with
improvements thereon situated in Esteban Mayo
St.Lipa City upon full payment of balance
P340.000 by the Plaintiff/petioner.
Aggrieved, Respondents/ Spouse Lajarca
appealed on CA assailing the decision of RTC.
CA proved the decision of RTC with
modifications. CA stated that Alejandro
Altamirano did not secure SPA from co-owners
when he sold the subject parcel of land to the
petitioner, therefore the said sale of Alejandro
did not bind his co-owners/other Altamiranos.
True that Alejandro did not secure SPA from
other co-owners but the CA held that despite the
absence of SPA from other co-owners, the sale
entered into by Alejandro Altamirano and the
petitioner is valid. CA held that under the regime
of co-ownership, a co-owner can freely sell and
dispose his undivided interest. CA held that the
sale between Alejandro Altamirano and the
petitioner affects only Alejandros pro diviso
share, such that the petitioner receives only what
corresponds to Alejandros undivided share in
the subject parcel of land.CA also held that the
sale between Spouses Lajarca and other
Altamiranos is also valid only insofar as aliquot
shares of other Altamiranos are concerned. Thus

CA in effect held that spouses Lajarca and


petitioner are co-owners of the parcel of land.
Issue:
W/N CA gravely abused its discretion when it
ruled that the sale entered into by other
Altamiranos and Alejandro Altamirano was
valid despite the absence of SPA.

Held.
No, true that the Civil Code provides under
articles 1874 and 1878 that Special power of
Attorney or written authority must be secured
first by the agent or a co-owner before he could
sell an immovable but under the regime of coownership, a co-owner could sell his undivided
interest or pro diviso share in the property
owned in common. Therefore the sale entered
into by Alejandro Altamirano is valid but only to
his aliquot part and also the sale entered into by
the other Altamiranos to Spouses Lajarca is also
valid with respect to the their aliquot part also.
SC declared that the sale executed by
Altamiranos is not violative of Articles 1874 and
1878 of the Civil Code.

S-ar putea să vă placă și