7/24/2019 FC 175 Go vs Servacio

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fc-175-go-vs-servacio 1/1

Go vs. ServacioG.R. No. 157537, [September 7, 2011]

FACTS

Gaviola and Protacio, Jr. entered into a contract ofsale of a parcel of land. 23 yearslater, Protacio, Jr executed an Affidavit of Renunciation and Waiver affirming under oaththat it as his father Protacio Go, !r."#arried to #arta Go$ ho purchased the saidproperty. !u%se&uently, Protacio Go together ith his son Rito Go sold a portion of theproperty to herein respondent 'ster !ervacio. (n #arch 2, 2))*, the petitionersdemanded the return of the property, %ut !ervacio refused to heed their demand+ hencethis case for the annulment of sale of the property. he contention of the petitioner asthat folloing Protacio, Jr.-s renunciation, the property %ecame conugal property+ andthat the sale of the property to !ervacio ithout the prior li&uidation of the communityproperty %eteen Protacio, !r. and #arta as null and void pursuant to Article *3) of the /amily 0ode. !ervacio and Rito countered that Article *3) of the /amily 0ode as

inapplica%le+ that the ant of the li&uidation prior to the sale did not render the saleinvalid, %ecause the sale as valid to the extent of the portion that as finally allotted tothe vendors as his share+ and that the sale did not also preudice any rights of thepetitioners as heirs, considering that hat the sale disposed of as ithin the ali&uotportion of the property that the vendors ere entitled to as heirs.

he R0 declared that the property as the conugal property of Protacio, !r. and#arta, not the exclusive property of Protacio, !r. 1onetheless, the R0 affirmed thevalidity of the sale of the property. Aggrieved, the petitioners ent all the ay up to the!upreme 0ourt.

!SS"#Whether Article *3) of the /amily 0ode as applica%le.

$#%&

he appeal lacs merit.nder Article *3) in relation to Article *)4 of the /amily 0ode,any disposition of theconugal property after the dissolution of the conugal partnership must %e made onlyafter the li&uidation+ otherise, the disposition is void. pon #arta-s death in *567, theconugal partnership as dissolved, pursuant to Article *74 "*$ of the 0ivil 0ode, and animplied ordinary co8onership ensued among Protacio, !r. and the other heirs of #artaith respect to her share in the assets of the conugal partnership pending a li&uidationfolloing its li&uidation.Protacio, !r., although %ecoming a co8oner ith his children in respect of #arta-sshare in the conugal partnership, could not yet assert or claim title to any specificportion of #arta-s share ithout an actual partition of the property %eing first done either %y agreement or %y udicial decree. ntil then, all that he had as an ideal or a%stract&uota in #arta-s share. 1onetheless, a co8oner could sell his undivided share+ hence,Protacio, !r. had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest, %ut not theinterest of his co8oners. 0onse&uently, the sale %y Protacio, !r. and Rito as co8onersithout the consent of the other co8oners as not necessarily void, for the rights of theselling co8oners ere there%y effectively transferred, maing the %uyer "!ervacio$ aco8oner of #arta-s share. Article *)4 of the /amily 0ode, supra, expressly providesthat the applica%ility of the rules on dissolution of the conugal partnership is “without 

 prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.” 

he proper action in cases lie this is not for the nullification of the sale or for therecovery of possession of the thing oned in common from the third person hosu%stituted the co8oner or co8oners ho alienated their shares, %ut the 9:;:!:(1 of the common property as if it continued to remain in the possession of the co8onersho possessed and administered it <#ainit v. =andoy, supra> :n the meanhile,!ervacio ould %e a trustee for the %enefit of the co8heirs of her vendors in respect of any portion that might not %e validly sold to her.