Scenario: Property Dispute in the Philippines

Background: Maria and Juan are siblings who inherited a piece of agricultural land in Batangas,
Philippines, from their deceased parents. The land has been in their family for generations and
holds significant sentimental and financial value. After their parents' death, the land was divided
equally between Maria and Juan, with each receiving a title to their respective portions.

Conflict: Several years later, Juan decided to sell his portion of the land to a developer, XYZ
Corporation, without informing Maria. The developer plans to convert the agricultural land into a
commercial complex. Maria, upon learning about the sale, is devastated and feels betrayed by
her brother’s decision. She believes that their parents intended for the land to remain in the
family and used for agriculture. Maria also discovers that the sale might have procedural defects
regarding the right of first refusal, which she believes she had as co-owner of the inherited
property.

Maria approaches you, a law student practitioner, for legal advice on the following points:

1. Validity of the Sale:

o Can Maria challenge the sale of the property on the grounds that she had the right
of first refusal?
o What are the legal requirements for a valid sale of co-owned property in the
Philippines?
2. Rights as a Co-Owner:
o What rights does Maria have as a co-owner of the inherited property?
o Can Maria demand the nullification of the sale or any other remedies under
Philippine law?
3. Procedural Defects:
o What procedural steps must be followed for the sale of co-owned property?
o If these steps were not followed, what legal grounds does Maria have to challenge
the sale?
4. Emotional and Sentimental Considerations:
o Does Philippine jurisprudence consider the sentimental value of inherited
property in disputes?
o Can Maria use this as a basis to challenge the sale or seek a different resolution?

Legal Advice Needed: Maria needs comprehensive legal advice on how to proceed with her
case. She wants to know her options, the likelihood of success, and the potential consequences of
challenging the sale. Maria is particularly interested in any case laws or precedents in Philippine
jurisprudence that might support her position.
Legal Opinion- (RILLE EPHREIM E. ASIS)

1.

A. No maria cannot challenge the sale made by Juan to XYZ on the ground of the right of
first refusal. This case is not one of the instances were the right of first refusal may be
exercises, considering that though Maria and Juan are siblings they are not anymore co-
owners of the property left by their parents, by virtue of the separate title which they
receive in relation to their portion of the land they inherited from their parents.

Under the law, the owner has a right to dispose of a thing, without limitations than those
established by law. Further, co ownership seize to exist upon partition of the thing owned
in common.

In this case, challenging the validity of the sale executed by Juan in favor of XYZ
corporation is a futile. Juan being owner of the land in question by virtue of the title issue
in his name, may dispose the same without limitations other than those established by
law. It includes disposition of the land in favor of third person whom Juan see fit. That
includes real estate developers

B.

In general, under Philippine laws, the legal requirements before for a valid sale of
undivided co owned property in the Philippines is Consent. All the co-owners of the
undivided property owned in common must give their consent. Any sale without the
consent of the other co-owners is null and void. This is because a sale of a definite
portion of an undivided property operate to partition the land with respect to the co-owner
selling the land. The seller is already marking which portion should redound to his
autonomous ownership upon future partition.

2.

A.

The following are the rights of a co-owner:

1. Right to a proportionate share in the benefits as well as the charges to the co-
ownership
2. Right to use the thing owned in common as long as it does not injure the interest
of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it
3. Right to initiate legal action for the ejectment of occupants in the co-ownership
4. Right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses for the
preservation of the thing owned in common and to the taxes
 5. Right to compel co-owners to a pro-rata share in the necessary expenses and
income as mentioned above
6. Right to demand partition of the real property at any time
7. Right to make alterations with the consent of the co-owners
8. Right to alienate, assigns, mortgage or substitute as regard the portion of his/her
shares or ownership.

The right of a co-owner is basically the same with the rights of an owner. The only
limitation is that a co-owner must respect the rights of his co-owners. A co-owner must
use the thing owned in common as long as it does not injure the interest of the co-
ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it. The underlying rationale is that
until a division is actually made, the respective share of each cannot be determined, and
every co-owner exercise joint ownership of the property owned in common in addition to
his use and enjoyment of the said property.

B.

No, Maria cannot demand the nullification of the sale of the or any other remedies under
Philippine laws.

Under the law, under the law, the owner has a right to dispose of a thing, without
limitations than those established by law. Further, co ownership seize to exist upon
partition of the thing owned in common

In this case, Maria cannot demand for the nullification of the sale considering that she is
not anymore, a co-owner of the property whom Juan sold to XYZ, by virtue of the
respective titles issued in their favor.

3.

A. In general, under Philippine laws, the legal requirements before for a valid sale of
undivided co-owned property in the Philippines is Consent. All the co-owners of the
undivided property owned in common must give their consent. Any sale without the
consent of the other co-owners is null and void. This is because a sale of a definite
portion of an undivided property operate to partition the land with respect to the co-owner
selling the land. The seller is already marking which portion should redound to his
autonomous ownership upon future partition.

Also, such co-owned property before the sale may be partition so that the selling co-
owner may now alienate his definite portion of the property owned in common without
the consent of the other parties.
B.

In cases where the consent of the other co-owners was not obtained prior to the alienation
of a definite portion of the property owned in common such alienation is null in void
under the new civil code. The other co-owner may seek judicial remedy for the nullity of
said alienation and the eventual reversion of the ownership of the subject property back
into the hands of the co-owners.

Further, the other co-owner may sue for damages against the selling co-owner for the
damages they suffer due to his unauthorized alienation of the subject property.

4.

A.

No, the Philippines does not consider the sentimental value of inherited property in land
dispute cases.

Under the law, in cases of dispute of property the provision of the new civil code and
family code governs.

In this case, though individuals tend to put sentimental value as one of the primary
considerations is pursuing legal actions in land conflict cases. Philippine laws do not put
premium in sentimental value when considering who should among the parties in a civil
suit owns a disputed property. The provisions on property in the civil code and family
code governs with regards to the rights of individuals with regards to the property in
question.

B,

No, sentimental value in property cannot be made a basis as a cause of action in a civil
suit for property dispute.

Under the law, only those instances provided by the civil code and family code may be
made a basis in cases of filing a civil suit over unauthorized alienation of co-owned
property or in a property dispute.

In this case, nothing in the civil code or family code allows one to sue on the basis of the
sentimental value of a subject property by the aggrieve party. In suing for a property
dispute the basis should always be the new civil code ang family code considering that
the rights of an individuals over his ownership of a certain property is vested by either the
new civil code or family code.