Tagarao vs.

Garcia

Facts:

Petitioners are the grandchildren of defendant Garcia’s brother.

The land is a 31-ha land bought by Ventura and Marcos Garcia (defendant). Ventura has two children: Merced and Claro.
Plaintiffs are the children of Merced.

Plaintiffs’ parents died in 1914. This action for delivery of ¼ of the land was brought in 1928. Their ages were:
Resurrecion 24, Serafin 23, Buenaventura 18.

After the death of his brother Merced, Marcos claimed the land in a cadastral case and alleged that he purchased it in
1904 with his 2nd wife Tabifranca. To prevent Claro from frustrating his plans, Marcos promised him a 4-ha w/c he
obtained in 1927.

The certificate was issue in 1918 and stated that Marcos and Tabifranca each owned ½. In 1921, Tabifranca sold the ½ to
her step daughter and step granddaughter apparently to avoid her son from a previous marriage from inheriting it.

Meanwhile, Tagarao learned of her uncle Claro’s obtaining of the 4-ha share w/c prompted her to also claim. Marcos
promised to give her her share but instead he sold his ½ to the brother of his son-in-law.

The RTC ordered delivery of the ¼ and annulled the sales.

Issues: W/N sale valid. W/N plaintiffs entitled to relief.

Held: Void. Resurrecion not entitled.

Ratio:

1. Sale by Tabiifranca is fictitious. She knew she was not entitled to the land as her spouse has acquired it before
their marriage. The price is disproportionate to the value. The buyers are in no financial position as they are
minors.

Sale by Marcos fictitious. Buyer is in no financial position-only as retailer of tuba and fresh fish. This was alleged
to be a mortgage. Interest was not paid.

2. The 3-year exception under Sec. 42 of Art. 190 not yet elapsed. But Resurrecion is already 24 and the 3-year
period has prescribed.

Tagarao cites Velasquez vs. Teodoro w/c held that where defendants’ interests are joint and inseparable, the
others’ right is saved by the disability of another, although the former is not disabled. But SC said that case is
N/A because she can dispose of her ownership in common w/o the consent of co-owners.

Every co-owner is the absolute owner of his part although the effect of disposal is limited to his share upon
partition. Any of the co-owners also has a right to partition.

The statute of limitations protects the diligent and vigilant, not the person who sleeps on his right.

She did nothing to protect her rights in 1915 (death of mother). After this, Marcos’ possession was in concept of
an owner w/c ripened after 10 years of continued possession

Dispositive: Only 2/12 ordered transferred.

Arcelona vs. CA, RTC, Farnacio (1997)

Facts:

Petitioners are co-owners of a fishpond w/c they inherited from their deceased parents.

In March 1978, a lease contract over the land was made between Tandoc and the co-owners. Tandoc appointed
Farnacio as caretaker-tenant. In 1984, upon lease termination, Tandoc returned possession to lessors.

Afterward, Farnacio filed an action to maintain his tenancy. Only the lessors were impleaded (petitioners NOT
impleaded).

The RTC and IAC favoured Farnacio. Petitioners then filed for annulment of said decision in CA. CA favoured Farnacio and
denied the case.

Petitioners (they were in California) allege the decision is void for being rendered without jurisdiction.

Issue: W/N decision valid.

Held: Void. CA reversed, decision annulled.

Ratio:

Court did not obtain jurisdiction over an indispensable party. They were not impleaded. Hence, decision is void.

Indispensable Party – interest is affected by court’s action w/o whom no final determination can be had

For a tenant to establish tenancy over an undivided property, he must implead all co-owners. They are all indispensable
parties. It is impossible to determine specific portions owned by the co-owners.

Even if the lessor was authorized to represent the other co-owners, this does not extend to the civil case.

He is responsible to name the persons against whom he wants to establish his status as tenant.