LAND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

PARTIES:

Raymond L. Peralta Marjorie P. Puzon Residents of Pasig City

Vs.

Melania Peralta- Resident of Alcala, Pangasinan

Melchor Peralta- Resident of Alcala, Pangasinan

Tony Peralta- Resident of Marikina


Carmelita Peralta- Resident of California- Needs to execute an SPA to authorize the
agent to make legal decisions on her behalf while
 still not in the Philippines. Must be consularized (red ribbon) in the
 Philippines Embassy in California.

Silvino Jr Peralta- Resident of California- Needs to execute an SPA to authorize the
agent to make legal decisions on her behalf while still not in the Philippines.
Must be consularized (red ribbon) in the Philippines Embassy in California.

Deceased children of the decedents:

Raymundo Peralta- Succeeded by Raymond Peralta and Marjorie Puzon

Pedro Peralta- Succeeded by kids

Beth Peralta- Succeeded by GiGi , Edward, Rommel



Virginia Peralta- Succeeded by Lorelei Peralta Estrada- Resident of Hawaii, USA-
Needs to execute an SPA to authorize the agent to make legal decisions on her
behalf. Must be consularized (red ribbon) in the Philippines Embassy in Hawaii.


Facts:
The parties to this dispute are the heirs of spouses Silvino Peralta and Paulina
Peralta who died on January 1, 1985 and January 1, 2012 respectively. They both
died without a will and that they left a parcel of land with TCT NO. 20745. That on
March 4, 2021 Raymond Peralta and Marjorie Puzon executed a Deed of
Extrajudicial Partition with Sale with buyer Joyce Anne P. Tugade .


Issue:
Whether or not the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Sale afforded Joyce Anne P.
Tugade, the buyer the right to physically partition and choose the one hundred fifty
square meter portion of the co-owned property.

Resolution:

First, prior to the partition of the estate of the decedents, the same is owned in
common by the heirs. As provided in Article 1078 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines, which states:

“Art. 1078. Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is,
before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of
debts of the deceased.”

It is clear then that the property left by the decedents, before the same is
partitioned, is owned in common by the decedent’s heirs. Basic then is the rule that
no one heir has an exclusive right to a property owned in common.

Further, Article 493 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines states:

“Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits
and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage
it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights
are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-
owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division
upon the TERMINATION of the CO-OWNERSHIP.”

Corollary to the above-mentioned provisions of law is Article 494 of the same Code,
which provides that:
“Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co- ownership. Each co-
owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar
as his share is concerned.”
 The above articles of law are further elicited in the case of Philippine
National Bank vs. Garcia, et al. (GR 182839, June 2, 2014), the Supreme Court
through Associate Justice Arturo Brion stated that:
“While under Article 493 of the New Civil Code, each co-owner shall have the full
ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto and he may
alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment,
the effect of the alienation or the mortgage with respect to the co-owners, shall be
limited, by mandate of the same article, to the portion which may be allotted to him
in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. He has NO right to sell or
alienate a concrete, specific, or determinate part of the thing held in common to the
EXCLUSION of the other co-owners because his right over the thing is represented
by an abstract or Ideal portion without any physical adjudication. An individual co-
owner CANNOT adjudicate to himself or claim title to any definite portion of the
land or thing owned in common until its actual partition by agreement or judicial
decree. Prior to that time all that the co- owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or
proportionate share in the entire thing owned in common by all the co-owners.
What a co-owner may dispose of is only his undivided aliquot share, which shall be
limited to the portion that may be allotted to him upon partition. xxx”

 Accordingly, Raymond Peralta and Marjorie Puzon can only sell their
undivided aliquot share, in other words only their interest in the property, which is
limited to the portion that may be allotted to them upon partition. In the document
of Extrajudicial of Settlement with Sale presented by the Buyer Joyce Anne P.
Tugade in their meeting in the Barangay on the 10th of March 2021, states that
Raymond Peralta and Marjorie Puzon, the vendors, are the absolute owners of “a
portion of one hundred fifty (150) square meters more or less and that only the
portion of one hundred fifty (150) square meters is the subject of the sale pertaining
to the share of Raymond Peralta and Marjorie Puzon. In effect this document only
proves that what was sold was the vendors’ aliquot share, their undivided interest
in the co-owned property. The buyer, by virtue of the Extrajudicial of Settlement
with Sale does not have the right to take it upon herself to physically divide the
property in question and choose where her one hundred fifty (150) square meters
within the property should be located. The document only had the effect of making
her a co-owner with regards to the property to the extent of one hundred fifty (150)
interest.
 Furthermore, the said document as a “Deed of Sale” is not binding as it does
not vividly describe the property that will be transferred by its metes and bounds
in the specific portion of an unpartitioned co-owned property. Notwithstanding, all
the other co-owners have the pre-emptive right or the right of first refusal, to
purchase first that portion of the property owned in common before Raymond
Peralta and Marjorie Puzon can sell it to a third party, as held by the Supreme Court
in a similar case, to wit:

“If a portion of the property co-owned has been sold to third person, without
affording the other co-owner the opportunity of first refusal, the latter shall have 30
days from receipt of such notice or knowledge thereof to exercise the right of legal
redemption, at a reasonable price” (Oscar C. Fernandez, et al. v. Spouses Carlos and
Narcisa Tarun,G.R.143868,November 14,2002).

Corollary to the foregoing, pertinent provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
is hereunder reproduced:

“Article 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case the
shares of all the other co-owners or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If the
price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a
reasonable one. Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of
redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share they may respectively
have in the thing owned in common.”

“Article 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised
except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by
the vendor, as the case may be, The Deed of Sale shall NOT be recorded in the
Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has
given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners. The right of redemption
of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners.”

From the above, it is therefore imperative upon Raymond Peralta and Marjorie
Puzon to offer the portion of the property co-owned to the other co- owners first
before selling the same to Joyce Anne P. Tugade. As is the case, the co-owners of the
property in question have 30 days from the moment they have notice or knowledge
of the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale executed by Raymond Peralta and Marjorie
Puzon and Joyce Anne P. Tugade to exercise their rights of pre-emption or
redemption by buying back the property in question at the price paid for by the
buyer, if they deem it reasonable but only to the extent of the shares of each co-
owners.
For the exercise of the right of redemption, it can be through:

1. A formal tender with consignation, or

2. by filing a complaint in court coupled with consignation of the redemption price
within the prescribed period.

What is condition precedent to a valid exercise of the right of legal redemption is
either the formal tender with consignation or the filing of a complaint in court. What
is paramount is the availment of the fixed and definite period within which to
exercise the right of legal redemption as pronounced in the case of Lee Chuy Realty
vs. CA, G.R. No. 104114 December 4, 1995.

The following are the requisites to effect legal redemption under Article 1623
of the Civil Code:

“From the above provisions, the following are the requisites forthe exercise of legal
redemption:
(1) There must be a co-ownership;

(2) one of the co-owners sold his right to a stranger;


(3) the sale was made before the partition of the co-owned property;

(4) the right of redemption must be exercised by one or more co-owners within a
period of thirty days to be counted from the time that he or they were notified in
writing by the vendee or by the co-owner vendor; and

(5) the vendee must be reimbursed for the price of the sale.”

Also, in BPI vs. Veloso, G.R. No. 141974. August 9, 2004 it was pronounced that the
general rule in redemption is that it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem
manifests his desire to do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied by an
actual and simultaneous tender of payment. This constitutes the exercise of the right
to repurchase.

Be that as it may, in order for a property owned in common to be partitioned, it is
imperative that all heirs of the estate must exercise in the following solutions:

1. Judicial Partition of Property; (By means of a petition filed in court when the
decedent left a last will and testament or whenever there is a dispute as to who will
inherit the estate or how it will be distributed) or

2. Extrajudicial Partition of Property (This is accomplished by having an attorney

draft the extrajudicial settlement document, which must be signed by all heirs and
published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a local newspaper where the
properties are situated. Thereafter, the legal paperwork is filed with the appropriate
registry of properties upon payment of the estate and other taxes.


N.B
While case is also being heard by the barangay the co-owners should file an
Adverse Claim in the Registry of Deeds where the Property is located. I have already
prepared the Affidavit, fill it up accordingly and have it notarized and submit it to
the Register of Deeds where the property is located. Also, for due diligence check the
legality of the Notary.