Del Campo v.

CA FACTS: The Bornales (Salome, Consorcia, Alfredo, Maria, Rosalia, Jose, Quirico and Julita) were the original coowners of a lot in Capiz. Salome had sold her 4/16 share to Daynolo with Salome, Consorcia and Alfredo signing the Deed of Absolute Sale, which had described the metes and bounds of the property. Daynolo immediately took possession and mortgaged the portion to Regalado. Simplicio Distajo, heir of Daynolo, had paid the mortgaged debt and redeem the lot from Regalado, who executed a Deed of Discharge of Mortgage in favor of Daynolos heirs (Simplicio Distajo, Rafael Distajo and Teresita Distajo). They sold the redeemed portion to the spouses Del Campo and Quiachon. Meanwhile, Regalado had cause the reconstitution of the OCT initially reflecting the share of the Bornales but the title was later transferred to Regalado, who had the entire property subdivided and titled into smaller lots. The spouses Del Campo brought this complaint for the repartition, resurvey and reconveyance of lot against the heirs of Regalado (deceased). Owned the portion of land erroneously included in the TCT in the name of Regalado Had occupied the lot as a residential dwelling ever since their purchase of it from the Distajos Had declared the land for tax purposes and paid the corresponding taxes Presented the Deed of Absolute Sale executed between Soledad and Salome, Deed of Mortgage and Deed of Discharge of Mortgage signed by Regalado and Deed of Absolute sale showing their purchase The trial court dismissed the complaint. Salome could alienate her pro-indivisio share but could not have validly sold an undivided portion of the lot by metes and bounds to Soledad, from whom the Del Campos had derived their title. Del Campos could not have a better right to the property even if they were in physical possession and had declared for tax purposes because mere possession cannot defeat the right of Regalado, who had a Torrens title. CA had affirmed the decision. ISSUES: W/N a sale by a co-owner of a physical portion of an undivided property held in common is valid? HELD:

YES. A sale by a co-owner of a physical portion of an undivided property held in common is valid but only up to her proviso share. RATIO: