Co-Ownership Rights: Limits on Selling and Legal Redemption of Shares

The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Republic v. Heirs of Francisca Dignos-Sorono (G.R. No. 171571) clarifies a fundamental rule of co-ownership: a co-owner may sell only their own undivided share, and such a sale does not transfer the shares of other co-owners. The case also explains the right of legal redemption among co-heirs and the importance of proper notice.

The Facts of the Case

Two lots in Lapu-lapu City were adjudicated in 1929 to several families in four equal shares. The lots were never physically partitioned among the co-owners. In 1957, the heirs of one co-owner, Tito Dignos, sold the entire two lots to the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) through an "Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale." The other co-owners and their heirs were not informed of this sale.

Decades later, the CAA's successor, the Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA), built a security fence on one lot and relocated families to a portion of it. When MCIAA obtained tax declarations in its name, the other co-owners' heirs filed a complaint for quieting of title and legal redemption.

The Issue

The central question was whether the sale of the entire property by one co-owner's heirs was valid and effective against the other co-owners, and whether the other co-owners could redeem the share that was sold.

The Ruling: A Co-Owner Can Sell Only Their Own Share

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the lower courts. The Court applied Article 493 of the Civil Code, which states that each co-owner has full ownership of their part and may alienate it, but the effect of such alienation is "limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership."

Citing its earlier ruling in Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that even if a co-owner sells the whole property as if it were their own, the sale affects only their own share. The buyer becomes a co-owner of the property, holding only the rights of the seller. In this case, the CAA acquired only the ¼ undivided share belonging to Tito Dignos' heirs—not the remaining ¾ owned by the other co-owners.

No Prescription, Laches, or Constructive Notice

The Court also rejected MCIAA's defenses:

• Acquisitive prescription did not apply because the lots were registered land. Under the Torrens system, registered lands cannot be acquired by prescription.
• Laches did not bar the action because the respondents only learned of the 1957 sale in 1996 when MCIAA built the fence and relocated families.
• Constructive notice did not apply because the sale was erroneously registered under Act No. 3344, which governs unregistered land, instead of Act No. 496, the applicable law for registered land. The registration therefore did not operate as notice to the whole world.

Legal Redemption Under Article 1088

The Court upheld the respondents' right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code, which allows co-heirs to redeem a share sold to a stranger before partition by reimbursing the purchase price, provided they do so within one month from written notice of the sale.

Since the heirs of Tito Dignos never gave written notice of the sale, the one-month period never began to run. The redemption price was correctly set at the actual purchase price paid in 1957—not the current market value. Significantly, the Court noted that MCIAA could seek recourse against the vendors under the warranty clause in the deed of sale.

Practical Takeaways

• A co-owner cannot sell the entire common property without the consent of the other co-owners. Such a sale transfers only the seller's undivided share.
• Buyers of co-owned property should verify the seller's title carefully. A buyer acquires only what the seller actually owns, not the shares of non-consenting co-owners.
• Co-heirs have a right of legal redemption when one heir sells their hereditary rights to a stranger before partition. The right must be exercised within one month of written notice.
• Proper registration matters. Registering a deed under the wrong law (e.g., Act No. 3344 instead of Act No. 496 for registered land) does not give constructive notice to the public.
• Prescription does not run against registered land, and laches requires proof that the party knew of the adverse claim for an unreasonable length of time.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.