Property Case Digest | Vda. De Castro v. Atienza
Vda. De Castro v. Atienza
63 SCRA 264
Facts:
Brothers Tomas de Castro and Arsenio de Castro, Sr., leased to plaintiff a fishpond containing an area of 26 hectares situated in Polo, Bulacan and forming part of a bigger parcel of land. The lessors are co-owners in equal shares of the leased property.
In the meantime, Tomas de Castro died. Later on, plaintiff as lessee and defendant Arsenio de Castro, Sr. as one of the lessors, agreed to set aside and annul the contract of lease and for this purpose an agreement was signed by them, Exhibit A as signed by plaintiff and defendant shows that Felisa Cruz Vda. De Castro, widow of Tomas de Castro, was intended to be made a party thereof in her capacity as representative of the heirs of Tomas de Castro.
Felisa Cruz Vda. De Castro refused to sign. Defendant did not pay P2,500.00 which he should have paid on December for payment was made by plaintiff’s counsel on January 7, 1957 but to no avail, hence the present action.
There was conflicting contentions between the parties as to who between them would attend to securing the signature of Mrs. Felisa Cruz Vda. de Castro to the agreement of cancellation of the lease with respondent Atienza.
Issues:
1. Whether Arsenio as co-owner of the fishpond owned pro-indiviso by him with his brother Tomas could validly lease his half-interest to a third party independently of his co-owner.
2. In case of his co-owner also leased his other half interest to the same party, whether Arsenio could cancel his own lease agreement with said third party.
Held:
Yes to both issues. Each of the Castro brothers leased his undivided one-half interest in the fishpond they owned in common to the plaintiff. If the lease could be entered into partially by one of the co-owners, then the lease can also be cancelled partially as between plaintiff and defendant. Therefore, consent of Mrs. Felisa Cruz Vda. De Castro is not essential for the cancellation of the lease of defendant’s one-half undivided share in the fishpond to plaintiff.
Article 493 expressly provides that;
“Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation of 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 co-ownership.”
More From oflodor
Related posts:
- Property Case Digest | Vda. De Aviles v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Ramirez v. Ramirez
- Property Case Digest | Leon Alderete v. Gregorio Amandoron, and Julio Angosto
- Property Case Digest | Anulina Bogacki v. Hon. Sancho Inserto
- Property Case Digest | Saenz v. Hermanos
- Property Case Digest | Narciso v. Ortiz
- Case Digest | De Guzman v. De la Fuente
- Property Case Digest | De La Rama v. Sanchez
- Case Digest | Bernardo v. Bataclan
- Property Case Digest | Pamplona v. Moreto
