ANGELA I.

TUASON, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ANTONIO TUASON, JR., and GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., defendants-appellees.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
FACTS: Sisters Angela I. Tuason and Nieves Tuason de Barreto and their brother Antonio Tuason Jr.,
held a parcel of land covered by Certificate of Title No. 60911 in Sampaloc, Manila, in common, each
owning an undivided 1/3 portion. Nieves wanted and asked for a partition of the common property, but
failing in this, she offered to sell her 1/3 portion. It was sold to Gregorio Araneta Inc., a domestic
corporation. The three co-owners agreed to have the whole parcel subdivided into small lots and then
sold, the proceeds of the sale to be later divided among them. This agreement is embodied in a
"Memorandum of Agreement"
The three co-owners agreed to improve the property by filling it and constructing roads and curbs on
the same and then subdivide it into small lots for sale. Because of the importance of paragraphs 9, 11
and 15 of the contract (Exh. 6), for purposes of reference we are reproducing them below:
(9) This contract shall remain in full force and effect during all the time that it may be necessary
for the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART to fully sell the said property in small and subdivided
lots and to fully collect the purchase prices due thereon; it being understood and agreed that said
lots may be rented while there are no purchasers thereof;
(11) The PARTY OF THE SECOND PART (meaning Araneta Inc.) is hereby given full power
and authority to sign for and in behalf of all the said co-owners of said property all contracts of
sale and deeds of sale of the lots into which this property might be subdivided; the powers
herein vested to the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART may, under its own responsibility and
risk, delegate any of its powers under this contract to any of its officers, employees or to third
persons;
(15) No co-owner of the property subject-matter of this contract shall sell, alienate or dispose of
his ownership, interest or participation therein without first giving preference to the other co-
owners to purchase and acquire the same under the same terms and conditions as those offered
by any other prospective purchaser. Should none of the co-owners of the property subject-matter
of this contract exercise the said preference to acquire or purchase the same, then such sale to a
third party shall be made subject to all the conditions, terms, and dispositions of this contract;
provided, the PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART (meaning Angela and Antonio) shall be bound
by this contract as long as the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART, namely, the GREGORIO
ARANETA, INC. is controlled by the members of the Araneta family, who are stockholders of
the said corporation at the time of the signing of this contract and/or their lawful heirs;

ISSUE:
WON the contract null and void because its terms, particularly paragraphs 9, 11 and 15 which we have
reproduced, violate the provisions of Art. 400 of the Civil Code,
ART. 400. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain a party to the community. Each may, at any
time, demand the partition of the thing held in common.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a specified length of time, not
exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This period may be a new agreement.
We agree with the trial court that the provisions of Art. 400 of the Civil Code are not applicable. The
contract (Exh., 6) far from violating the legal provision that forbids a co-owner being obliged to remain
a party to the community, precisely has for its purpose and object the dissolution of the co-ownership
and of the community by selling the parcel held in common and dividing the proceeds of the sale
among the co-owners. The obligation imposed in the contract to preserve the co-ownership until all the
lots shall have been sold, is a mere incident to the main object of dissolving the co-owners. By virtue of
the document Exh. 6, the parties thereto practically and substantially entered into a contract of
partnership as the best and most expedient means of eventually dissolving the co-ownership, the life of
said partnership to end when the object of its creation shall have been attained.
This aspect of the contract is very similar to and was perhaps based on the other agreement or contract
(Exh. "L") referred to by appellant where the parties thereto in express terms entered into partnership,
although this object is not expressed in so many words in Exh. 6. We repeat that we see no violation of
Art. 400 of the Civil Code in the parties entering into the contract (Exh. 6) for the very reason that Art.
400 is not applicable.

Mariano vs. CA
FACTS: Francisco Gosiengfaio is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Tuguegarao. In his
lifetime, he mortgaged the land to Rural Bank of Tuguegarao to secure payment of a loan. Francisco
died in without paying the debt. His intestate heirs were: his wife Antonia and children Amparo, Carlos,
Severo, Grace, Emma, Ester, Francisco, Jr., Norma, Lina, and Jacinto.

The bank foreclosed on the mortgage but before the redemption period expired, Antonia, Emma, Lina,
Norma, Lina, Carlos and Severo executed a deed of assignment of the right of redemption in favor of
Amparo. Amparo later on sold the land to Spouses Mariano.

Grace Gosengfiao, and the other heirs excuded in the deed of assignment filed a complaint for recovery
and legal redemption with damages against spouses Mariano.

RTC decided in favor of spouses Mariano. CA for Grace Gosiengfia, et. al.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a co-owner who redeems the whole property with her own personal funds becomes the
sole owner of said property and terminates the existing state of co-ownership?

RULING:
No. Admittedly, as the property in question was mortgaged by the decedent, a co-ownership existed
among the heirs during the period given by law to redeem the foreclosed property. Redemption of the
whole property by a co-owner does not vest in him sole ownership over said property but will inure to
the benefit of all co-owners. In other words, it will not end to the existing state of co-ownership.
Redemption is not a mode of terminating a co-ownership.

Respondents have not lost their right to redeem, for in the absence of a written notification of the sale
by the vendors, the 30-day period has not even begun to run.
Reyes vs. Concepcion

FACTS: Plaintiffs, the defendants and the intervenor are the pro-indiviso co-owners of the
properties cited and described in the complaint. Six and nine tenth (6-9/10) hectares of the
land covered by TCT No. T-1319; approximately twelve (12) hectares of that covered by TCT
No. T-1320; and the entire parcel of covered by TCT No. T-1321, are subject of expropriation
proceedings instituted by the National Housing Authority (NHA), The plaintiffs received a
written notice from the defendants and the intervenor that the VOLCANO SECURITIES
TRADERS AND AGRI-BUSINESS CORPORATION had offered to buy the latter's share in the
properties listed in the complaint. Plaintiffs were requested:To exercise their pre-emptive right
to purchase defendants' and intervenor's shares under the above-quoted terms; or To agree
to a physical partition of the properties; or To sell their shares, jointly with the defendants and
the intervenor, to the VOLCANO SECURITIES TRADERS AND AGRI-BUSINESS
CORPORATION at the price and under the terms aforequoted.
Plaintiff contends that the subject properties are incapable of physical partition; defendants
and intervenor argued That the subject properties consisting approximately 95 hectares may
be physically partitioned without difficulty in the manner suggested by them to plaintiffs, and
as graphically represented in the subdivision plan, which will be furnished in due course to
plaintiffs' counsel. respondent trial judge issued an order dated February 4, 1981 which
directed the parties to signify whether or not they agree to the scheme of allotting the subject
properties to one of the co-owners, at the rate of P12.50 per square meter, or whether or not
they know of a third party who is able and willing to buy the subject properties at terms and
conditions more favorable than that offered by VOLCANO LAKEVIEW RESORTS, INC. judge
ruled that petitioners did not possess a pre-emptive right to purchase private respondents'
shares in the co-ownership. Thus, finding that the subject properties were essentially
indivisible, respondent trial judge ordered the holding of a public sale of the subject properties
pursuant to Article 498 of the New Civil Code

ISSUE: WON plaintiff has pre-emptive right to purchase private respondents' pro-indiviso
shares
RULING: NO
Article 494 of the New Civil Code which lays down the general rule that no co-owner is
obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Article 494 reads as follows:
No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner
may demand at any time partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his
share is concerned.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of
time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a
new agreement.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed
twenty years.
Neither shall there be partition when it is prohibited by law.
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners
 or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
None of the legal exceptions under Article 494 applies to the case at bar. Private respondents'
counterclaim for the partition of the subject properties was therefore entirely proper. However,
during the pre-trial proceedings, petitioners adopted the position that the subject properties
were incapable of physical partition. Initially, private respondents disputed this position. But
after petitioners inexplicably refused to abide by the pretrial order issued by respondent trial
judge, and stubbornly insisted on exercising an alleged pre-emptive right to purchase private
respondents' shares at a "reasonable price", private respondents relented and adopted
petitioner's position that the partition of the subject properties was not economically feasible,
and, consequently, invoked the provisions of Article 498 of the New Civil Code [Private
respondents' "Motion To Allot Properties To Defendants Or To Sell the Same Pursuant To
Article 498 Of The Civil Code", Annex "D" of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 46-49].
Inasmuch as the parties were in agreement as regards the fact that the subject properties
should not be partitioned, and private respondents continued to manifest their desire to
terminate the co-ownership arrangement between petitioners and themselves, respondent
trial judge acted within his jurisdiction when he issued his order dated February 4, 1981
requiring the parties to answer certain questions for the purpose of determining whether or
not the legal conditions for the applicability of Article 498 of the New Civil Code were present
in the case.
Art. 498 provides that:
Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree
that it be alloted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold
and its proceeds distributed.
The sale of the property held in common referred to in the above article is resorted to when
(1) the right to partition the property among the co-owners is invoked by any of them but
because of the nature of the property, it cannot be subdivided or its subdivision [ See Article
495 of the New Civil Code] would prejudice the interests of the co-owners (See Section 5 of
Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court) and (2) the co-owners are not in agreement as to who
among them shall be allotted or assigned the entire property upon reimbursement of the
shares of the other co-owners.
Petitioners herein did not have justifiable grounds to ignore the queries posed by respondent
trial judge and to insist that hearings be conducted in order to ascertain the reasonable price
at which they could purchase private respondents' pro-indiviso shares [Petitioners'
"Compliance and Motion" dated February 27, 1981, Annex "H" of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 57-
60].
Since at this point in the case it became reasonably evident to respondent trial judge that the
parties could not agree on who among them would be allotted the subject properties, the
Court finds that respondent trial judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in ordering the
holding of a public sale for the subject properties (with the opening bid pegged at P12.50 per
square meter), and the distribution of the proceeds thereof amongst the co-owners, as
provided under Article 498 of the New Civil Code.