Co-Ownership

GR No 143027
Cuizon v Remoto
October 11, 2005
Petitioners: Encarnacion L. Cuizon and Salvador Cuizon
Respondents: Mercedes C. Remoto, Leonida R. Meynard, Celerina R. Rosales and Remedios C. Remoto
FACTS
The property in question is a 4,300 sq.m land in Barangay Basilisa, Agusan del Norte.
Petitioner spouses Encarnacion Lambo Cuizon and Salvador Cuizon rely on TCT No. RT-3121 in the name
of Encarnacion, married to Salvador, issued by the Registry of Deeds of Agusan Del Norte on March 15, 1984.
TCT No. RT-3121 stems from a notarized Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale dated August 3, 1983
executed by the heirs of Placida Tabada-Lambo, wherein they adjudicated to themselves the one-fourth
share of Placida, and, at the same time, sold said portion to Encarnacion, their co-heir. (TCT No. RT-183,
where TCT 3121 came from, originally covers 16 hectares in the name of Placida (married to Gervacio Lambo),
Eugenio Tabada, Raymunda Tabada and Patrecia Tabada, each being one-fourth shareowner.)
On the other hand, respondents have a notarized Deed of Sale of Real property dated September 19, 1968,
involving a portion of the same property covered by TCT No. RT-183, measuring 4,300 square meters,
executed by Placida in favor of Angel Remoto, husband of respondent Mercedes C. Remoto.
In a previous decision dated March 9, 1990, the court ruled for the property to be reconveyed in favor of
respondents in the case they filed against petitioners. The respondents can legally claim possession and
ownership of the lot in dispute covered by the duly notarized but unregistered Deed of Sale of Real Property.
Vendor Placida Tabada, her husband, and vendee Angel Remoto also signed the document.
The Petitioners contended that at the time the 1968 deed of sale was executed, no written notice was given to
all possible co-redemptioners, co-heirs, and co-owners1.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N the Remotos have the better right to the property over the Cuizons (Who has a better right to the
property?)
2. W/N a property co-owned can be disposed of freely by one of the co-owners (co-ownership issue2)
HELD
1. Yes, the Remotos have the better right to the property. It is because of the following reasons:

1 There were also other contentions but they are irrelevant for property
2 This was just a sub-issue in the case so it makes the facts appear quite disconnected since this issue only came up when the court was trying to
decide on who has the better right to the property.

First, the 1968 Deed of Sale executed by Placida in favor of Angel Remoto should prevail over the
Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale made by the heirs of Placida in favor of Cuizon. This is supported
by the maxim prior tempore, potior jure which means that he who is first in time is preferred in right. When
Placida sold her one-fourth portion of the property to the respondents in this case, they immediately took
possession. The sale, as mentioned earlier, is evidenced by the duly notarized deed of sale that although
unregistered is acknowledged by a notary public which makes it a public document and admissible in
evidence.
The contention of the petitioner that the document was unregistered is of no merit because it does
not affect the validity of the contract. Registration only serves to bind third persons. The petitioners
are not third persons with respect to the Deed of Sale as Encarnacion is an heir of Placida.
The petitioners also had a knowledge of the unregistered deed of sale prior to his claimed
acquisition of the land. This is evidenced by the statement of the witnesses. The knowledge of the
petitioners had the effect of registering the land as to them.
Second, Petitioners heavily rely on the TCT issued in their names. At the time the document was entered
into by the heirs of Placida, they no longer were the owner of the property as it was already sold to Angel.
Nemo dat quod non habet or no one can give what one does not have.
2. Yes, Placida can dispose of her portion of the property.
The petitioners contested that no notice was given to all possible redemptioners or heirs at the time of the
execution. The said right of legal redemption only pertain to Placidas co-owners and not to her heirs. This
notice serves as an assurance that no one would contest the alienation. Also, records show that even if the
property is not formally subdivided, particular portions belonging to the co-owners have already been
allocated and have been exercising proprietary rights over their allotments (mortgages, deed of sale with
right to repurchase).
More importantly, Placidas right to sell her portion of the property is supported by Art 493 of the NCC
which provides that:
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and 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.