In Heirs of Herminio Marquez v. Heirs of Epifania M. Hernandez, the Supreme Court affirmed that a contract of sale is valid even if the seller, a co-owner, initially sells a definite portion of an unpartitioned property without the other co-owner’s explicit consent. The Court emphasized that if the other co-owner subsequently acquiesces to the sale by recognizing boundaries and not objecting, a partial partition is effectively created, validating the sale. This ruling clarifies the application of co-ownership principles in property transactions and protects the rights of buyers who rely on a seller’s apparent authority, especially when subsequent actions imply consent from all co-owners.

Can a Verbal Agreement Override Co-Ownership Rights in a Property Sale?

This case revolves around a parcel of land in Matungao, Bulacan, originally part of a larger 1,417-square meter property. Epifania Hernandez and her heirs (respondents) occupied a 200-square meter portion of this land since 1955 with the tolerance of the original owners. In 1967, Herminio Marquez acquired the entire 1,417-square meter property. In 1985, Herminio sold the 200-square meter portion to Epifania for P400.00 per square meter, with an agreement that full payment should be made within the year. Epifania made an initial payment and subsequent installments, allegedly completing the payment before her death in 1995. However, in 1994, Herminio executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights, transferring his rights over the entire property to his heir, Alma Marie Marquez (petitioner). This led to a dispute when Marquez demanded that Epifania’s heirs vacate the premises, triggering a legal battle over the validity of the sale to Epifania.

The central legal question is whether the sale of a specific portion of a property co-owned by Herminio and Alma Marie Marquez is valid, especially considering that the original agreement was not formalized in a public instrument. The respondents argued that a valid contract of sale existed, pointing to the initial payment, subsequent payments, and Herminio’s conformity to an extrajudicial settlement acknowledging the proceeds of a joint savings account as full payment for the land. The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that there was no valid contract of sale due to the absence of her consent as a co-owner, relying on the principle that a co-owner cannot sell a definite portion of a co-owned property without the consent of the other co-owners. The petitioner also argued that the action had already prescribed and that the respondents were guilty of laches.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the sale between Herminio and Epifania valid and ordering Marquez to partition the property to give effect to the sale. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, but modified the order regarding the partition, stating that the RTC had no jurisdiction to order partition in an ordinary civil action. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the CA’s modification regarding the partition, thereby reinstating the RTC’s original ruling.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the essential elements of a valid contract of sale were present: consent, object, and cause. The provisional receipt, the installment payments, and the extrajudicial settlement signed by Herminio, all indicated a clear intent to sell the property to Epifania. The Court also highlighted that Herminio transferred ownership when he allowed Epifania and her heirs to continue occupying the property after the agreement, thereby signifying delivery and consummation of the sale.

Regarding the issue of co-ownership, the Court distinguished the present case from Cabrera v. Ysaac, which held that a contract of sale purporting to sell a specific portion of unpartitioned land is null and void ab initio. The Supreme Court stated that in this case, Marquez had knowledge of the sale and tolerated the respondents’ possession of the property for many years, effectively creating a partial partition. As the Court stated in Pamplona v. Moreto:

The title may be pro-indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners, on the contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession, We rule that a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created, and barred not only the vendor, Flaviano Moreto, but also his heirs, the private respondents herein from asserting as against the vendees-petitioners any right or title in derogation of the deed of sale executed by said vendor Fiaviano Moreto.

This partial partition, coupled with Marquez’s acquiescence, validated the sale despite the initial lack of explicit consent. The Court also ruled that the action was not barred by prescription or laches, as the respondents were in continuous possession of the property and filed the action shortly after Marquez asserted her claim of ownership.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that the respondents’ complaint was not only for specific performance but also for quieting of title. The Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights, which resulted in the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in Marquez’s name, cast a cloud on the respondents’ equitable title, necessitating the action to quiet the title. The Court also addressed the issue of whether the action constituted a collateral attack on the certificate of title. It clarified that what cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title itself, not the underlying title or ownership. In this case, the respondents were assailing Marquez’s claim of ownership, which is a permissible direct attack in an action for quieting of title.

The Supreme Court concluded that the RTC did not err in ordering the partition of the property and the cancellation of the existing TCT, as the parties were already before the Court, and requiring them to institute separate partition proceedings would be unnecessarily circuitous. The Court emphasized the importance of putting an end to controversies and determining the respective rights of the parties in a final judgment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property by one co-owner without the express consent of the other co-owner is valid.
What is the doctrine of partial partition?	The doctrine of partial partition states that when co-owners agree to specific boundaries or tolerate the occupation of portions of the co-owned property by other co-owners, a factual partition is created, barring the co-owners from asserting rights in derogation of the established boundaries.
What is the difference between a direct and collateral attack on a title?	A direct attack on a title occurs when the object of the action is to nullify the title itself, whereas a collateral attack occurs when the title is questioned incidentally in an action seeking a different relief.
What are the essential elements of a valid contract of sale?	The essential elements of a valid contract of sale are consent, object, and cause, as defined under the Civil Code.
What does quieting of title mean?	Quieting of title is an action to remove any cloud or doubt on the title to real property, ensuring the owner has peaceful and uninterrupted enjoyment of their property.
When does an action for quieting of title prescribe?	An action for quieting of title does not prescribe if the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the property.
What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the sale?	The Supreme Court upheld the sale based on the presence of a perfected contract of sale, partial partition due to Marquez’s acquiescence, and the principle that equity considers as done that which ought to be done.
What is the significance of the extrajudicial settlement in this case?	The extrajudicial settlement, signed by Herminio, acknowledged that the proceeds of the joint savings account served as full payment for the property, reinforcing the validity of the sale agreement.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Heirs of Herminio Marquez v. Heirs of Epifania M. Hernandez provides valuable guidance on the application of co-ownership principles and the doctrine of partial partition. It underscores the importance of clear communication and formal documentation in property transactions and offers protection to buyers who rely on a seller’s apparent authority, especially when subsequent actions imply consent from all co-owners. This case illustrates that even in the absence of explicit consent, acquiescence and long-term tolerance can validate a sale and prevent future disputes over property ownership.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: HEIRS OF HERMINIO MARQUEZ VS. HEIRS OF EPIFANIA M. HERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 236826, March 23, 2022