Property Case Digest | Acebedo v. Abesamis
Acebedo v. Abesamis
217 SCRA 186
Facts:
The late Felix Acebedo left an estate consisting of several real estate properties. The decedent was succeeded by eight heirs, two of whom are the petitioners herein, and the others are the private respondents. Private respondent filed a “Motion for Approval of Sale”. Thus, they prayed for the Court to direct the administrator, Herodotus Acebedo to sell the properties mentioned in the motion, to pay all the claims against the estate and to distribute the residue among the heirs in final settlement of the estate.
Petitioners moved to be given a period of forty-five days within which to look for a buyer who will be willing to buy the properties at a price higher than P12,000,000.00.
Having miserably failed to find a better buyer, after seven long months, petitioner-administrator filed “Opposition to Approval of Sale”, dated May 10, 1990, maintaining that the sale should wait for the country to recover from the effects of the coup d’etat attempts, otherwise, the properties should be divided among the heirs.
Respondent judge issued an order, wherein the parties actually agreed that the heirs be allowed to sell their shares of the properties to Yu Hwa ping for the price already agreed upon.
Issue:
Is it within the jurisdiction of the lower court to order herein Administrator to sell the remaining portion of said properties?
Held:
It is settled that court approval is necessary for the validity of any disposition of the decedent’s estate. However, reference to judicial approval cannot adversely affect the substantive rights of the heirs to dispose of their ideal share in the co-heirship and/or co-ownership among the heirs.
Heir can sell whatever right, interest, or participation he may have in the property under administration.
The Civil Code, under the provisions on co-ownership, further qualifies this right. Although it is mandated that each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and thus may alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the ownership.
In other words, the law does not prohibit a co-owner from selling, alienating or mortgaging his ideal share in the property held in common.
More From oflodor
Related posts:
- Property Case Digest | Pamplona v. Moreto
- Property Case Digest | Reyes de Leon v. Del Rosario
- Property Case Digest | Roque v. Intermediate Appellate Court
- Property Case Digest | Bravo-Guerrero v. Bravo
- Property Case Digest | Pangan v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Case v. Heirs of Tuason
- Property Case Digest | Vda. De Castro v. Atienza
- Property Case Digest | Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Sophie Seifert v. Mary Mcdonald Bachrach
- Property Case Digest | Jacinto Orozco v. Salvador Araneta
