Ramirez v. Bautista
G.R. No. L-5075 December 1, 1909
FACTS:
Moises Ramirez, who died intestate, was married twice. In his first marriage, he had five (5) children, named Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia. Under his second marriage, he had three (3) children namely Cirila, Isabel, and Serapio, of whom Isabel alone survives. His wives predeceased him and at the time of his death he left two fish ponds.
The children of the first marriage sold the two fish ponds, to Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran for P1,100.00. The only surviving child of the second marriage, Isabel, was not a party to said sale. A case was filed by the administrator of the intestate estate to have the sale declared null and void and the fish ponds restored to the intestate estate of Moises.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale was valid.
RULING:
Yes. It was determined by the Court that the status of the two fish ponds was of community of property. The fishponds were acquired during the first marriage. Therefore the conjugal gains on property should have applied.
The Court laid down the following rules:
1. When two or more heirs appear at the opening of a testamentary succession, or during the progress of the settlement of an intestate estate, and each turns out to be an owner pro indiviso of the inheritance, by reason of the share he may be entitled to receive, a community of property then exists between the participants as long as the estate remains undivided and nothing more tangible can be imagined than this necessary community, which arose at the moment when the coheirs assumed the entire representation of the person of the deceased with respect to all of his property, rights, and actions, both active and passive.
2. Every co-owner shall have full ownership of his part and in the fruits and benefits derived there from, and he therefore may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question. But the effect of the alienation or mortgage, with regard to the co-owners, shall be limited to the share which may be awarded him in the division on the dissolution of the community.
Applying the said rules, the death of the mother vested in the children of the first marriage their mothers half share. The death of Moises entitled his eight children to a share each in the fishponds. Therefore, Isabella, being the lone survivor of her siblings, was entitled to a 3/16 share of the total property.
The Court held that Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia Ramirez could have lawfully alienated their respective shares in the joint ownership of the two parcels of land. The sale to the defendants, Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran was the sale of 13/16 of the said two properties and could not have been void. It was the sale of the 3/16 which belonged to Isabela alone which was void.
Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran succeed to the vendors should have been validly subrogated in the joint ownership of the two fish ponds sold and that the shares that redounded to them were the same that were owned by the vendors, which was, 13/16 of the two properties.
