Estoque vs. Pajimula

A sale by a co-owner of a specific, identified portion of land held in common is validated and becomes effective as a transfer of that segregated portion when the vendor subsequently acquires title to the entire property, by operation of Article 1434 of the Civil Code. Where a buyer thus acquires a definite segregated part, she does not become a co-owner of the undivided whole and cannot exercise the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 when the remainder is later sold to a third person.

Lot No. 802 of the Rosario Cadastre was originally owned by spouses Rosendo Perez and Fortunata Bernal. Upon their death, the lot passed to their children—Crispina, Lorenzo, and Ricardo Perez—as co-owners. On October 28, 1951, Crispina Perez Vda. de Aquitania executed a deed of sale in favor of Leonora Estoque, conveying the 1/3 southeastern portion of Lot No. 802, specifically bounded on all sides and containing 640 square meters. The next day, October 29, 1951, the remaining co-owners—Lorenzo Perez and the widow and children of the deceased Ricardo Perez—executed an extrajudicial settlement assigning all their rights and interests in Lot No. 802 to Crispina Perez, making her the sole owner. Eight years later, on December 30, 1959, Crispina Perez and her children sold the remaining 2/3 western portion of Lot No. 802 to Elena M. Pajimula. Estoque thereafter asserted a right to redeem that portion, claiming she had become a co-owner of the entire lot by virtue of the 1951 sale.

• Original Co-ownership: Lot No. 802 of the Cadastral survey of Rosario, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RO-2720 (N.A.), was originally owned by spouses Rosendo Perez and Fortunata Bernal. Upon their death, their children Crispina Perez, Lorenzo Perez, and Ricardo Perez inherited the property as co-owners. Ricardo Perez later died, survived by his widow Emilia P. Posadas and their minor children.

• Sale of 1/3 Portion to Estoque: On October 28, 1951, Crispina P. Vda. de Aquitania sold her “right and participation” in Lot No. 802 to Leonora Estoque, as evidenced by a deed of sale (Annex A). The deed specifically described the property sold as the 1/3 southeastern portion of Lot No. 802, containing 640 square meters, bounded on the north by De Guzman Street, on the east by Posadas Street, on the south by Perez Street, and on the west by the remaining portion of the same lot.

• Consolidation of Title in the Vendor: On October 29, 1951, Lorenzo Perez and Emilia P. Posadas (for herself and as representative of her minor children) executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement (Annex B). They assigned all their right, interest, and participation in Lot No. 802 to Crispina Perez, thereby making her the sole owner of the entire lot.

• Subsequent Sale to Pajimula and Redemption Claim: On December 30, 1959, Crispina Perez and her children sold the remaining 2/3 western portion of Lot No. 802 to Elena M. Pajimula (Annex C). This deed described the portion as the western part, bounded on the east by properties of Leonora Estoque, with an area of 958 square meters. Estoque filed a complaint for legal redemption under Article 1620 of the New Civil Code, asserting that she had become a co-owner of the whole lot since the 1951 sale could only transfer Crispina’s undivided 1/3 share, not a specific portion.

• Nature of the Sale: Petitioner argued that the deed of sale in her favor, although it specified a definite area and boundaries, was inoperative to convey a specific portion of property held in common. Because a co-owner may sell only an undivided share prior to partition, the conveyance should be construed as transferring solely the vendor’s 1/3 undivided interest in Lot No. 802.

• Creation of Co-ownership: Petitioner maintained that by acquiring an undivided interest, and because the vendor herself acquired the remaining 2/3 interest from the other co-owners the next day, Lot No. 802 became common property held by petitioner and Crispina Perez.

• Right of Redemption: Petitioner contended that the subsequent sale to the Pajimula spouses involved an undivided 2/3 share of the co-owned property, and as a co-owner, she was entitled to redeem that share pursuant to Article 1620 of the New Civil Code.

• No Co-ownership: Respondents countered that the deed of sale to Estoque covered a definitely identified, segregated, and bounded 1/3 southeastern portion of Lot No. 802, not an undivided interest. Consequently, Estoque never became a co-owner of the whole lot with the vendor or their successors at any point.

• Distinct and Separate Properties: Respondents pointed out that the portion they purchased was a different, specifically identified western portion of the lot, distinct from Estoque’s southeastern portion, thereby negating the existence of any co-ownership and, with it, any right of legal redemption.

• Existence of Co-ownership: Whether the sale to Estoque of a specifically identified and bounded 1/3 portion of Lot No. 802, combined with the vendor’s subsequent acquisition of full title to the entire lot, created a co-ownership between Estoque and the vendor or between Estoque and the subsequent purchasers of the remainder.

• Right of Legal Redemption: Whether Estoque could exercise the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the New Civil Code over the western portion sold to the Pajimula spouses.

• Existence of Co-ownership: No co-ownership was created. The deed of sale to Estoque unambiguously described the object as the southeastern third portion of Lot No. 802, with specific boundaries and area. While Crispina Perez, as a mere co-owner, lacked the capacity on October 28, 1951, to sell a definite portion of commonly owned land, the transaction was validated when, the following day, she acquired the entire interest of the other co-owners via an extrajudicial settlement, becoming sole owner. Under Article 1434 of the New Civil Code, when a person who is not the owner sells and delivers a thing and later acquires title to it, such title passes by operation of law to the buyer. Thus, Estoque became the actual owner of the segregated southeastern third, never acquiring an undivided interest in the entire lot.

• Right of Legal Redemption: The right of redemption under Article 1620 did not attach. Because Estoque’s portion (southeastern third) and the portion sold to the Pajimulas (western two-thirds) were distinct and separate from the outset, and Estoque was never a co-owner of the whole with the vendor or the defendants, the requisites for legal redemption by a co-owner were absent. The right under Article 1620 presupposes a community of interest in an undivided thing, a relationship that the facts pleaded negated.

• Doctrine of Validation by Subsequent Acquisition of Title (Article 1434, Civil Code) — Where a person who is not the owner of a thing sells and delivers it, and the seller later acquires title to the thing, title passes by operation of law to the buyer. Applied here, the sale of a specific portion of co-owned land by one co-owner, though originally ineffective for lack of capacity to alienate a definite part of undivided property, became fully effective when the vendor subsequently consolidated full ownership by acquiring the shares of the other co-owners. The buyer thereby acquired ownership of the specific, segregated portion described in the deed without ever becoming a co-owner of the whole.

• Principle on the Sale of a Definite Portion by a Co-owner — A co-owner may validly sell her undivided interest in commonly held property but may not sell a specific, definite physical portion before partition. If a co-owner purports to sell a definite portion and later acquires sole title to the entire property, the defect in the original sale is cured, the sale is validated as a conveyance of that specific segregated part, and the buyer does not step into the shoes of a co-owner of the undivided lot.

• “While on the date of the sale to Estoque (Annex A) said contract may have been ineffective, for lack of power in the vendor to sell the specific portion described in the deed, the transaction was validated and became fully effective when the next day (October 29, 1951) the vendor, Crispina Perez, acquired the entire interest of her remaining co-owners (Annex B) and thereby became the sole owner of Lot No. 802 of the Rosario Cadastral survey.” — This passage encapsulates the rationale for validating the sale of the definite portion despite the vendor’s initial lack of capacity.

• “When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee.” — The Court’s direct quotation of Article 1434 of the New Civil Code, serving as the statutory anchor for the validation of an initially ineffective disposition of co-owned property.

• Llacer vs. Muñoz, 12 Phil. 328 — Followed as controlling authority for the rule that a sale of a definite portion of co-owned land, though initially ineffective, becomes validated when the vendor later acquires title to the whole property, thereby perfecting the transfer of the specific portion.

• Lopez vs. Ilustre, 5 Phil. 567; Ramirez vs. Bautista, 14 Phil. 528 — Distinguished. These cases established the general rule barring a co-owner from selling a specific portion of commonly owned property before partition. The Court accepted the rule’s validity but held it did not prevent the subsequent validation of the sale upon the vendor’s acquisition of full title, consistent with Article 1434.

• Article 1434, New Civil Code — Applied to validate the sale of the specific southeastern portion to Estoque. The vendor’s acquisition of the remaining co-owners’ shares the day after the sale caused title to the definite portion to pass to Estoque by operation of law, curing the original defect in the vendor’s capacity.

• Article 1620, New Civil Code — Held inapplicable. The provision grants a co-owner the right to redeem shares sold to a third person, but because Estoque acquired a specific segregated portion and never became a co-owner of the undivided lot, the statutory basis for the right of redemption did not exist.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, JJ.