This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to this law, a co-owner has the right to alienate his proindiviso share in the co-owned property even without the consent of his co-owners.[23] This right is absolute and in accordance with the well-settled doctrine that a co-owner has a full ownership of his pro-indiviso share and has the right to alienate, assign or mortgage it, and substitute another person for its enjoyment.[24] In other words, the law does not prohibit a co-owner from selling, alienating, mortgaging his ideal share in the property held m common.[25] | |||||
|
2011-09-07 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Without doubt, the disposal of estate property required judicial approval before it could be executed.[42] Implicit in the requirement for judicial approval was that the probate court could rescind or nullify the disposition of a property under administration that was effected without its authority.[43] This power included the authority to nullify or modify its approval of the sale of the property of the estate to conform to the law or to the standing policies set and fixed for the purpose, where the invalidation or modification derived from the falsity of the factual basis of the disposition, or from any other factual mistake, or from the concealment of a material fact by a party. Consequently, the probate court's modification of its approval of the petitioners' offer to purchase was well within the power of the RTC to nullify or modify after it was found to be contrary to the condition for the approval. Thereby, the RTC's ruling, being sound and judicious, constituted neither abuse of discretion nor excess of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As early as 1942, this Court has recognized said right of an heir to dispose of property under administration. In the case of Teves de Jakosalem vs. Rafols, et al., it was said that the sale made by an heir of his share in an inheritance, subject to the result of the pending administration, in no wise, stands in the way of such administration. The Court then relied on the provision of the old Civil Code, Article 440 and Article 399 which are still in force as Article 533 and Article 493, respectively, in the new Civil Code. The Court also cited the words of a noted civilist, Manresa: "Upon the death of a person, each of his heirs 'becomes the undivided owner of the whole estate left with respect to the part or portion which might be adjudicated to him, a community of ownership being thus formed among the co-owners of the estate which remains undivided.'"[18] | |||||