GORDON, DENISE M.

PARTITION

Objective / goal of the writ   It is a process of dividing and assigning property owned in common among the various co-owners thereof in proportion to their respective
interests in said property.

Grounds for the issuance of the writ (note that when we 1. There must be a property wherein two persons exercise co-owenership.
say "grounds", we are referring to the substantive basis 2. A person must have the right to compel the partition of the real estate. 
for the issuance of the writ) 3. A person cannot demand partition if:
1. There is an agreement
2. Partition is prohibited by donor or testator
3. Partition is prohibited by law
4. Property is not subject to physical division
5. When the condition imposed upon voluntary heirs before they can demand partition has not yet been fulfilled.

Requisites for the issuance of the writ (here, I am referring 1. The action shall be brought by the person who has a right to compel the partition of real estate or of an estate composed of personal property, or
to procedural requirements) of both real and personal property
2. The plaintiff is a person who is supposed to be a co-owner of the property or estate sought to be partitioned. The defendants are all the co-
owners.
1. All the co-owners must be joined. Accordingly, an action will not lie without the joinder of all co-owners and other persons having
interest in the property. All the co-owners, therefore, are indispensable parties.
b. The plaintiff shall state in his complaint:
1. the nature and extent of his title, and
2. an adequate description of the real or personal estate of which partition is demanded
b. The plaintiff shall also join as defendants all other persons interested in the property.
c. He must also include a demand for an accounting of the rents, profits and other income from the property which he may be entitled to as his
share.

Jurisdiction - which court has subject matter jurisdiction
over the writ
Action may be filed either with MTC or RTC depending on the assessed value of the property.
Personal Property: 
 MTC if: 
o Personal property is valued at not more than P300,000 
o In Metro Manila at not more than P400,000
 RTC
o Beyond the aforementioned amounts 

Real property: 
 MTC if: 
o Real property is valued at not more than P20,000 
o In Metro Manila at not more than P50,000
 RTC
o Beyond the aforementioned amounts 

Venue - in which court (location) should the petition be May be filed with the MTC or RTC depending on the assessed value of the property.
filed
Filed with the  MTC of where the property is situated if:
 Subject matter of the action is personal property valued at not more than P300,000 and 
 In Metro Manila at not more than P400,000; or
 Real property valued at not more than P20,000 and
 In Metro Manila at not more than P50,000

Filed with the RTC of where the property is situated if:

 Beyond the aforementioned  amounts
Parties in interest as petitioner and respondent PLAINTIFF: 
 The person who has a right to compel the partition of real estate (Sec. 1) or of an estate composed of personal property, or both real and
personal property (Sec. 13). 
 A person who is supposed to be a co-owner of the property or estate sought to be partitioned.

DEFENDANT: 
 The defendants are all the co-owners. All the co-owners must be joined. Accordingly, an action will not lie without the joinder of all co-owners
and other persons having interest in the property (Reyes vs. Cordero, 46 Phil. 658). All the co-owners, therefore, are indispensable parties.

Peculiarities/uniqueness of the writ Prescription of action

 Prescription does not run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owner or co-heirs as long as there is a recognition of ownership
 The right of action to demand partition of a co-owned property does not prescribe; co-owner may acquire ownership thereof by prescription
where there exists a clear repudiation of the co-ownership and the co-owners are apprised of the claim of adverse and exclusive ownership
 
May be made in 2 ways
 By agreement of the parties
 By judicial proceedings under the Rules of Court when the parties cannot reach an agreement
 
Subject to multiple appeals
 Action for partition is subject to multiple appeals and would require a record on appeal.
 It enables the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final
 
Rule 69 applies to partitions of estates composed of personal property or of both real and personal property
 
Rule when there are expenses to be paid from the estate
1. In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable to the estate, partition is inappropriate.
1. Determination of the expenses like those related to the deceased’s final illness and burial, which are chargeable to the estate, cannot
be done in an action for partition.
2. Heirs must submit the decedent's father's estate to settlement because in estate settlement, there is a proper procedure for the
accounting of all expenses for which the estate must answer.
b. The heirs of the properties may take possession thereof even before the settlement of accounts, as long as they first file a bond conditioned on
the payment of the estate’s obligation

Give 3 digests of landmark cases about this writ 1. Heirs of Ureta Sr. v. Heirs of Ureta  GR. No. 165748 
2. Ignacio v. Reyes GR. No. 213192
3. Figuracion-Gerilla v. Vda. de Figuracion, G.R. No. 154322, [August 22, 2006], 531 PHIL 81-88

Flowchart showing the procedure of this writ. 1ST STAGE: SETTLEMENT ON THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP
The court shall determine whether or not the plaintiff is truly a co-owner of the property, that there is indeed a co-ownership among the parties, and that
the partition is not legally proscribed. If it finds that the facts are such, the plaintiff has a right to demand partition, the court will issue an order for
partition.

2ND STAGE: DISAGREEMENT OF PARTIES OR RENDITION OF ACCOUNTING

Commences when it appears that the parties are unable to agree upon the partition directed by the court. May also deal with the rendition of the accounting
itself and its approval by the court after the parties have been accorded opportunity to be heard, and an award for the recovery by the party or parties
thereto entitled of their just share in the rents and profits of the real estate in question. Parties are allowed to appeal a final order decreeing a partition and
accounting.

3RD STAGE: APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS

If parties are unable to agree, the court shall appoint not more than 3 commissioners, who are competent and disinterested persons to make the partition for
the parties. They shall make a full and accurate report to the court of all their proceedings as to the partition.
 4TH STAGE: ACTION OF THE COURT
The court may, upon hearing, take any of the following actions on the report of the commissioners:
a. Accept the report and render judgment
b. Recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of facts
c. Set aside the report and appoint new commissioners
d. Accept the report in part and reject it in part or
e. Make such order and render such judgment that shall effectuate a fair and just partition of the estate
*proceedings before the commissioners have no binding effect until the court have accepted the report of the commissioners and rendered judgment
thereon

5TH STAGE: JUDGMENT OF PARTITION

1. The judgment shall have the effect of vesting in each party the partition of the real estate assigned to him.
2. If the whole property is assigned to one of the parties upon his paying to the others the sum or sums ordered by the court, the effect of the
judgment shall be to vest in the party making the payment the whole of the real estate free from any interest on the part of the other parties to
the action.
3. If the property is sold and the sale is confirmed by the court, the effect of the judgment shall be to vest the real estate in the purchaser or
purchasers making the payment or payments, free from the claims of any of the parties to the action.

6TH STAGE: RECORDING OF THE JUDGMENT

A certified copy of the judgment shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place where the real estate is situated, and the expenses of such recording
shall be taxed as part of the costs of the action

LANDMARK CASES:
HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA, GR No. 165748  
Facts:
In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta (Alfonso) begot 14 children, namely, Policronio, Liberato, Narciso, Prudencia, Vicente, Francisco, Inocensio, Roque, Adela, Wenefreda, Merlinda, Benedicto, Jorge, and Andres. The children of
Policronio (Heirs of Policronio), are... opposed to the rest of Alfonso's children and their descendants (Heirs of Alfonso).
Alfonso was financially well-off during his lifetime. He owned several fishpens, a fishpond, a sari-sari store, a passenger jeep, and was engaged in the buying and selling of copra. Policronio, the eldest, was the only child of
Alfonso who failed to finish schooling and instead... worked on his father's lands.
 
Sometime in October 1969, Alfonso and four of his children, namely, Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco, met at the house of Liberato. Francisco, who was then a municipal judge, suggested that in order to reduce
the inheritance taxes, their father should make it... appear that he had sold some of his lands to his children. Accordingly, Alfonso executed four (4)   Deeds of Sale covering several parcels of land in favor of Policronio,[4]
Liberato,[5] Prudencia,[6] and his... common-law wife, Valeriana Dela Cruz.[7] The Deed of Sale executed on October 25, 1969, in favor of Policronio, covered six parcels of land, which are the properties in dispute in this
case.
 
Since the sales were only made for taxation purposes and no monetary consideration was given, Alfonso continued to own, possess and enjoy the lands and their produce.
Policronio died on November 22, 1974. Except for the said portion of parcel 5, neither Policronio nor his heirs ever took possession of the subject lands.
On April 19, 1989, Alfonso's heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition
 
Conrado, Policronio's eldest son,... representing the Heirs of Policronio, signed the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in behalf of his co-heirs.
 
After their father's death, the Heirs of Policronio found tax declarations in his name covering the six parcels of land. On June 15, 1995, they obtained a copy of the Deed of Sale executed on October 25, 1969 by Alfonso in
favor of Policronio.
Not long after, on July 30, 1995, the Heirs of Policronio allegedly learned about the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition involving Alfonso's estate when it was published in the July 19, 1995 issue of the Aklan Reporter.
 
Believing that the six parcels of land belonged to their late father, and as such, excluded from the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, the Heirs of Policronio sought to amicably settle the matter with the Heirs of Alfonso. Earnest
efforts proving futile, the Heirs of Policronio... filed a Complaint for Declaration of Ownership, Recovery of Possession, Annulment of Documents, Partition, and Damages[9] against the Heirs of Alfonso before the RTC on
November 17, 1995
 
On April 26, 2001, the RTC dismissed the Complaint of the Heirs of Policronio and ruled in favor of the Heirs of Alfonso in a decision
 
The RTC found that the Heirs of Alfonso clearly established that the Deed of Sale was null and void.
 
The RTC further found that there was no money involved in the sale. Even granting that there was, as claimed by the Heirs of Policronio, ?2,000.00 for six parcels of land, the amount was grossly inadequat
 
Aggrieved, the Heirs of Policronio appealed before the CA,... Aggrieved, the Heirs of Policronio appealed before the CA, which rendered a decision on April 20, 2004, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The appealed Decision, dated 26 April 2001, rendered by Hon. Judge Dean R. Telan of the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 9, is hereby AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION:
1.) The Deed of Sale in favor of Policronio Ureta, Sr., dated 25 October 1969, covering six (6) parcels of land is hereby declared VOID for being ABSOLUTELY SIMULATED;
2.) The Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, dated 19 April 1989, is ANNULLED;
3.) The claim for actual and exemplary damages are DISMISSED for lack of factual and legal basis.
The case is hereby REMANDED to the court of origin for the proper partition of ALFONSO URETA'S Estate in accordance with Rule 69 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. No costs at this instance.
SO ORDERED.
 
Issues:
1. whether or not the Deed  of Sale was valid; 
2. whether or not the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition was valid; 
3. (3) who between the parties was entitled to damages.
 
HELD: No Void 
Validity of the Deed of Sale
Two veritable legal presumptions bear on the validity of the Deed of Sale: (1) that there was sufficient consideration for the contract; and (2) that it was the result of a fair and regular private transaction.
 
First, the Deed of Sale was not the result of a fair and regular private transaction because it was absolutely simulated.
The Heirs of Policronio posited that his loyal services to his father and his being the eldest among Alfonso's children, might have prompted the old man to sell the subject lands to him at a very low price as an advance
inheritance.
 
They explained that Policronio's failure to... take possession of the subject lands and to claim their produce manifests a Filipino family practice wherein a child would take possession and enjoy the fruits of the land sold by a
parent only after the latter's death.
They contended that Policronio's failure to take actual possession of the lands did not prove that he was not the owner as he was... merely exercising his right to dispose of them.
 
The Court disagrees.

The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the finding of the CA that the Deed of Sale is null and void for being absolutely simulated. The Civil Code provides:
Art. 1345. Simulation of a contract may be absolute or relative. The former takes place when the parties do not intend to be bound at all; the latter, when the parties conceal their true agreement.
Art. 1346. An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void. A relative simulation, when it does not prejudice a third person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy binds the parties to their real... agreement.
 
The Heirs of Alfonso established by a preponderance of evidence[17] that the Deed of Sale was one of the four (4) absolutely simulated Deeds of Sale which involved no actual monetary consideration, executed by Alfonso in
favor of his children, Policronio,... Liberato, and Prudencia, and his second wife, Valeriana, for taxation purposes.
Considering that the Deed of Sale has been found void and the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition valid, with the consent of all the Heirs of Policronio duly given, there is no need to remand the case to the court of origin for
partition.
 
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 165748 is DENIED. The petition in G.R. No. 165930 is GRANTED.   The assailed April 20, 2004 Decision and October 14, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 71399, are hereby MODIFIED in this... wise: 1)  The Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, dated April 19, 1989, is VALID, and (2) The order to remand the case to the court of origin is hereby DELETED.SO ORDERED.
 
IGNACIO V. REYES G.R. NO. 213192 | JULY 12, 2017 
PERALTA, J.
 
Petitioner: Teresa Ignacio
Respondent: Ramon Reyes, Florencio Reyes Jr., Rosario Du, and Carmelita Pastor
 
DOCTRINE: There must be first a determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper, that is, it is not otherwise legally proscribed and may be made by voluntary agreement of all the
parties interested in the property.
 
FACTS:
·   Angel Reyes and Oliva R. Arevalo filed before the then CFI of Rizal (now RTC of Pasig City, intestate court) a Petition for Letters of Administration of the Estate of their father Florencio Sr.
·   Thereafter, Teresa became the administratrix of the Florencio Sr. estate. Teresa executed several lease contracts over properties in Baguio City.
·   Herein respondents filed before the RTC three complaints for partition, annulment of lease contract, accounting and damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against Teresa and
the lessees of the subject Baguio properties. They alleged in their Complaints that, with the exception of the lessees, the parties and the Florencio Sr. estate own one-tenth (1/10) of each of the Session Road,
Loakan and Military Cut-off, and Magsaysay properties. They claimed that Teresa misrepresented that the Florencio Sr. estate is the sole owner of the properties and leased the same to the other parties without
their conformity. They also asserted in one of their complaints that the Florencio Sr. estate is different from the Heirs of Florencio Sr. and Heirs of Salud.
·   They averred that, as co-owners, they have not received their share in the monthly rentals of the properties aforementioned.
·   RTC – manifested that it shall await a Request Order from the intestate court regarding the possible distribution of the subject properties.
·   Intestate Court – denied respondent’s motion
·   CA – annulled order of intestate court. Granted respondent’s petition for partition.
 
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in its decision? NO.
 
HELD: Petition denied. CA affirmed with modification to resume trial to determine the question of ownership and if partition is proper.
 
·   Respondents presented certificates of title of the properties registered under their names and the Florencio Sr. estate, and their respective shares. As such, they are considered the owners of the properties until
their title is nullified or modified in an appropriate ordinary action. The co-ownership of the said properties by virtue of the certificates of title is a common issue in the complaints for partition led before the
Baguio RTC. Thus, the intestate court committed grave abuse of discretion when it asserted jurisdiction over the subject properties since its jurisdiction relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of
the estate of deceased persons.
 
·   An action for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court is typically brought by a person claiming to be the owner of a specified property against a defendant or defendants whom the plaintiff recognizes to be
his co-owners, and is premised on the existence or non-existence of co-ownership between the parties.

In this regard, the RTC shirked from its duty when it deferred the trial to await a request order from the intestate court regarding the possible distribution. In fact, it has not yet made a definite ruling on the existence
of co-ownership. There was no declaration of entitlement to the desired partition either because a co-ownership exists or a partition is not legally prohibited. As this Court is not a trier of facts, it is for the trial
court to proceed and determine once and for all if there is co-ownership and to partition the subject properties if there is no legal prohibition. It is also best for the Baguio RTC to settle whether the respondents
are claiming ownership over the properties by virtue of their title adverse to that of their late father and his estate and not by any right of inheritance.
VDA. DE FIGURACION V. FIGURACION-GERILLA
 G.R. NO. 151334 |FEBRUARY 13, 2013 | REYES, J.:
 
FACTS:
The parties are the heirs of Leandro Figuracion (Leandro) who died intestate in May 1958. Petitioner Carolina is the surviving spouse. The other petitioners―Elena Figuracion-Ancheta, Hilaria A. Figuracion (Hilaria), Felipa
Figuracion-Manuel (Felipa), Quintin Figuracion, and Mary Figuracion-Ginez, and respondent Emilia were Carolina and Leandro’s children.
 
Subject of the dispute are two parcels of land both situated in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, which were acquired by Leandro during his lifetime. These properties were:
(1) Lot No. 2299 with a land area of 7,547 square meters originally covered by TCT No. 4221-P;
(2) Lot No. 705 measuring 2,900 square meters and covered by TCT No. 4220-P. 
 
Both lands were registered in the name of “Leandro Figuracion married to Carolina Adviento”. Leandro executed a Deed of Quitclaim over the above real properties in favor of his 6 children on August 23, 1955. Their shares,
however, were not delineated with particularity because spouses Leandro and Carolina reserved the lots and its fruits for their expenses.
 
(MAIN PROPERTY INVOLVED) Also involved in the controversy is Lot No. 707 of the Cadastral Survey of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, with an area of 3,164 square meters originally owned by Eulalio Adviento (Eulalio),
covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 15867 issued in his name on August 21, 1917. Eulalio begot Agripina Adviento (Agripina) with his first wife Marcela Estioko (Marcela), whom Eulalio survived. When he
remarried, Eulalio had another daughter, herein petitioner Carolina, with his second wife, Faustina Escabesa (Faustina).
 
On November 28, 1961, Agripina executed a Deed of Quitclaim over the eastern half of Lot No. 707 in favor of her niece, herein respondent Emilia.
 
On December 11, 1962, petitioner Carolina executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication adjudicating unto herself the entire Lot No. 707 as the sole and exclusive heir of her deceased parents, Eulalio and Faustina. On the same
date, Carolina also executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over Lot No. 707 in favor of petitioners Hilaria and Felipa, who in turn immediately caused the cancellation of OCT No. 15867 and the issuance of TCT No. 42244 in
their names.
 
In 1971, Emilia (Respondent) and her family went to the US and returned to the Philippines only in 1981. Upon her return and relying on the Deed of Quitclaim, she built a house on the eastern half of Lot No. 707.
 
In 1994, Hilaria and her agents threatened to demolish the house of Emilia who, in retaliation, was prompted to seek the partition of Lot No. 707 as well as Lot Nos. 2299 and 705. The matter was initially brought before the
Katarungang Pambarangay, but no amicable settlement was reached by the parties.
 
On May 23, 1994, respondent Emilia instituted the herein Complaint for the partition of Lot Nos. 2299, 705 and 707, annulment of the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, Deed of Absolute Sale and TCT No. 42244,
reconveyance of eastern half portion of Lot No. 707, quieting of title and damages.
RTC Ruling: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for partition, reconveyance, quieting of title and damages is hereby ordered dismissed whereas the affidavit of self-adjudication[,] deed of sale and the transfer
certificate of title involving Lot 707 are hereby declared null and void.
 
The RTC ruled that a partition of Lot Nos. 2299 and 705 will be premature since their ownership is yet to be transmitted from Leandro to his heirs whose respective shares thereto must still be determined in estate settlement
proceedings. Anent Lot No. 707, the RTC held that petitioner Carolina transferred only her one-half (½) share to Felipa and Hilaria and any conveyance of the other half pertaining to Agripina was void. While the RTC
nullified the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, Deed of Absolute Sale and TCT No. 42244, it refused to adjudicate the ownership of the lot’s eastern half portion in favor of respondent Emilia since a settlement of the estate of
Eulalio is yet to be undertaken.
 
CA Ruling: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby GRANTED and the decision appealed from in Civil Case No. U-5826 is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby
rendered declaring Lot No. 707 covered by TCT No. 42244 to be owned by appellant Emilia Figuracion- Gerilla [herein respondent], ½ pro indiviso share, appellee Felipa Figuracion [herein petitioner], ¼ pro indiviso share,
and appellee Hilaria Figuracion [herein petitioner], ¼ pro indiviso share, who are hereby directed to partition the same and if they could not agree on a partition, they may petition the trial court for the appointment of a
commissioner to prepare a project of partition, in accordance with the procedure as provided in Rule 69 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
 
The CA ruled that the RTC erred in refusing to partition Lot No. 707. The CA explained that there is no necessity for placing Lot No. 707 under judicial administration since Carolina had long sold her ½ pro indiviso share to
Felipa and Hilaria. Thus, when Carolina sold the entire Lot No. 707 on December 11, 1962 as her own, the sale affected only her share and not that belonging to her co-owner, Agripina. The proper action in such case is not
the nullification of the sale, or for the recovery of possession of the property owned in common from the third person, but for a division or partition of the entire lot. Such partition should result in segregating the portion
belonging to the seller and its delivery to the buyer.
 
The CA, however, agreed with the RTC that a partition of Lot Nos. 2299 and 705 is indeed premature considering that there is a pending legal controversy with respect to Lot No. 705 and the accounting of the income from
Lot No. 2299 and of the expenses for the last illness and burial of Leandro and Carolina, for which the lots appear to have been intended.
 
Respondent Emilia appealed the CA’s decision to the SC, docketed as G.R. No. 154322. In a Decision promulgated on August 22, 2006, the SC denied the appeal, concurring with the CA’s ruling that a partition of Lot Nos.
2299 and 705 would be inappropriate considering that: (1) the ownership of Lot No. 705 is still in dispute; and (2) there are still unresolved issues as to the expenses chargeable to the estate of Leandro.
 
ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Emilia can compel the partition of Lot 707
 
RULING: Yes. Here, the respondent traces her ownership over the eastern half of Lot No. 707 from the Deed of Quitclaim executed by Agripina (see after fallo), who in turn, was the co-owner thereof being one of the
legitimate heirs of Eulalio. It is well to recall that the petitioners failed to categorically dispute the existence of the Deed of Quitclaim. Instead, they averred that it has been rendered ineffective by TCT No. 42244 in the name
of Felipa and Hilaria―this contention is, of course, flawed.
 
Mere issuance of a certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not named in the certificate, or that the registrant may only be a
trustee, or that other parties may have acquired interest over the property subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title. Stated differently, placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean
that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. The certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership.
 
In this case, co-ownership of Lot No. 707 was precisely what respondent Emilia was able to successfully establish, as correctly found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. The status of Agripina and Carolina as the legitimate
heirs of Eulalio is an undisputed fact. As such heirs, they became co-owners of Lot No. 707 upon the death of Eulalio on July 20, 1930. Since Faustina was predeceased by Eulalio, she likewise became a co-owner of the lot
upon Eulalio’s death. Faustina’s share, however, passed on to her daughter Carolina when the former died on October 18, 1949. The Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by Carolina did not prejudice the share of Agripina
because it is not legally possible for one to adjudicate unto himself an entire property he was not the sole owner of. A co-owner cannot alienate the shares of her other co-owners―nemo dat qui non habet
 
Hence, Lot No. 707 was a co-owned property of Agripina and Carolina. As co-owners, each of them had full ownership of her part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. Each of them also had the right to alienate
the lot but only in so far as the extent of her portion was affected.
 
Thus, when Carolina sold the entire Lot No. 707 on December 11, 1962 to Hilaria and Felipa without the consent of her co-owner Agripina, the disposition affected only Carolina’s pro indiviso share, and the vendees, Hilaria
and Felipa, acquired only what corresponds to Carolina’s share. A co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share; hence, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and
void and only the rights of the co-owner/seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.
 
Accordingly, the deed of sale executed by Carolina in favor of Hilaria and Felipa was a valid conveyance but only insofar as the share of Carolina in the co-ownership is concerned. As Carolina’s successors-in-interest to the
property, Hilaria and Felipa could not acquire any superior right in the property than what Carolina is entitled to or could transfer or alienate after partition.
 
Hilaria and Felipa did not acquire the undivided portion pertaining to Agripina, which has already been effectively bequeathed to respondent Emilia as early as November 28, 1961 thru the Deed of Quitclaim. In turn, being
the successor-ininterest of Agripina’s share in Lot No. 707, respondent Emilia took the former’s place in the co-ownership and as such co-owner, has the right to compel partition at any time.
 
USUFRUCT of PARTITION
Under the Old Civil Code which was then in force at the time of Eulalio and Marcela’s marriage, Lot No. 707 was their conjugal property. When Marcela died, one-half of the lot was automatically reserved to Eulalio, the
surviving spouse, as his share in the conjugal partnership. Marcela’s rights to the other half, in turn, were transmitted to her legitimate child, Agripina and surviving spouse Eulalio. Under Article 834 of the Old Civil Code,
Eulalio was entitled only to the usufruct of the lot while the naked ownership belonged to Agripina. When he remarried, Eulalio’s one half portion of the lot representing his share in the conjugal partnership and his
usufructuary right over the other half were brought into his second marriage with Faustina.
 
When Eulalio died on July 20, 1930, ¼ portion of the lot was reserved for Faustina as her share in the conjugal partnership. The remaining ¼ were transmitted equally to the widow Faustina and Eulalio’s children, Carolina
and Agripina. However, Faustina is only entitled to the usufruct of the third available for betterment.
 
The usufructuary of Eulalio over the ½ portion inherited by Agripina earlier was merged with her naked ownership. Upon the death of Faustina, the shares in Lot No. 707 which represents her share in the conjugal partnership
and her inheritance from Eulalio were in turn inherited by Carolina including Faustina’s usufructuary rights which were merged with Carolina’s naked ownership.
 
Consequently, Agripina is entitled to 5/8 portion of Lot No. 707 while the remaining 3/8 pertains to Carolina. Thus, when Carolina sold Lot No. 707 to Hilaria and Felipa, the sale affected only 3/8 portion of the subject lot.
Since the Deed of Quitclaim, bequeathed only the ½ eastern portion of Lot No. 707 in favor of Emilia instead of Agripina’s entire 5/8 share thereof, the remaining 1/8 portion shall be inherited by Agripina’s nearest collateral
relative, who, records show, is her sister Carolina.
 
In sum, the CA committed no reversible error in holding that the respondent is entitled to have Lot No. 707 partitioned. The CA judgment must, however, be modified to conform to the above-discussed apportionment of the
lot among Carolina, Hilaria, Felipa and Emilia.