LILIA SANCHEZ VS CA, JUNE 20, 2003, G.R. NO.

152766, 404 SCRA 540

FACTS OF THE CASE: Lilian Sanchez constructed a house on a 76-square meter lot
owned by her parents-in-law. The lot was registered under TCT No. 263624 with the
following co-owners: Eliseo Sanchez, Marilyn Sanchez, Lilian Sanchez, Nenita Sanchez,
Susana Sanchez and Felipe Sanchez.[1 On 20 February 1995, the lot was registered
under TCT No. 289216 in the name of private respondent Virginia Teria by virtue of a
Deed of Absolute Sale supposed to have been executed on 23 June 1995[2 by all six (6)
co-owners in her favor.[3 Petitioner claimed that she did not affix her signature on the
document and subsequently refused to vacate the lot, thus prompting private respondent
Virginia Teria to file an action for recovery of possession of the aforesaid lot with the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Caloocan City sometime in September 1995.
Petitioner not having filed any pleading with the RTC of Caloocan City, the trial court
affirmed the 27 July 1998 decision of the MeTC.

On 4 November 1998, the MeTC issued an order for the issuance of a writ of execution
in favor of private respondent Virginia Teria, buyer of the property. On 4 November 1999
or a year later, a Notice to Vacate was served by the sheriff upon petitioner who however
refused to heed the Notice.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to her 1/6 share of the co-owned
property
HELD AND RATIO: YES. The lower courts failed to pass upon the issue of co-ownership
present in the case at hand. Co-ownership, whether established by law or by agreement
of the co-owners, the property or thing held pro-indiviso is impressed with a fiducial nature
so that each co-owner becomes a trustee for the benefit of his co-owners and he may not
do any act prejudicial to the interest of his co-owners. Thus, the legal effect of an
agreement to preserve the properties in co-ownership is to create an express trust among
the heirs as co-owners of the properties. Co-ownership is a form of trust and every co-
owner is a trustee for the others. Before the partition of a land or thing held in common,
no individual or co-owner can claim title to any definite portion thereof. All that the co-
owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire land or thing.
Article 493 of the Civil Code gives the owner of an undivided interest in the property the
right to freely sell and dispose of it, i.e., his undivided interest. He may validly lease his
undivided interest to a third party independently of the other co-owners. But he has no
right to sell or alienate a concrete, specific or determinate part of the thing owned in
common because his right over the thing is represented by a quota or ideal portion without
any physical adjudication. Although assigned an aliquot but abstract part of the property,
the metes and bounds of petitioner’s lot has not been designated. As she was not a party
to the Deed of Absolute Sale voluntarily entered into by the other co-owners, her right to
1/6 of the property must be respected. Partition needs to be effected to protect her right
to her definite share and determine the boundaries of her property. Such partition must
be done without prejudice to the rights of private respondent Virginia Teria as buyer of
the 5/6 portion of the lot under dispute.
Verily, the negligence of petitioners counsel cannot be deemed as negligence of petitioner
herself in the case at bar. A notice to a lawyer who appears to have been unconscionably
irresponsible cannot be considered as notice to his client.[7 Under the peculiar
circumstances of this case, it appears from the records that counsel was negligent in not
adequately protecting his clients interest, which necessarily calls for a liberal construction
of the Rules.