Lilia Sanchez V Court of Appeals
Lilia Sanchez V Court of Appeals
Lilia Sanchez V Court of Appeals
Rationale/Analysis/Legal
Basis:
1. SC’s
RULING
REGARDING
THE
LAWYER’S
INACTION:
Citing
the
case
People’s
Homesite
and
Housing
Corporation
v
Tiongco:
“There
should
be
no
dispute
regarding
the
doctrine
that
normally
notice
to
counsel
is
notice
to
parties,
and
that
such
doctrine
has
beneficent
effects
upon
the
prompt
dispensation
of
justice.
Its
application
to
a
given
case,
however,
should
be
looked
into
and
adopted,
according
to
the
surrounding
circumstances;
otherwise,
in
the
courts
desire
to
make
a
short-‐cut
of
the
proceedings,
it
might
foster,
wittingly
or
unwittingly,
dangerous
collusions
to
the
detriment
of
justice.
It
would
then
be
easy
for
one
lawyer
to
sell
ones
rights
down
the
river,
by
just
alleging
that
he
just
forgot
every
process
of
the
court
affecting
his
clients,
because
he
was
so
busy.
Under
this
circumstance,
one
should
not
insist
that
a
notice
to
such
irresponsible
lawyer
is
also
a
notice
to
his
clients.”
2. DEFITIONION
OF
CO-‐OWNERSHIP:
the
manifestation
of
the
private
right
of
ownership,
which
instead
of
being
exercised
by
the
owner
in
an
exclusive
manner
over
the
things
subject
to
it,
is
exercised
by
two
or
more
owners
and
the
undivided
thing
or
right
to
which
it
refers
is
one
and
the
same.
3. CHARACTERISTICS
OF
CO-‐OWNERSHIP:
(a)
plurality
of
subjects,
who
are
the
co-‐
owners,
(b)
unity
of
or
material
indivision,
which
means
that
there
is
a
single
object
which
is
not
materially
divided,
and
which
is
the
element
which
binds
the
subjects,
and,
(c)
the
recognition
of
ideal
shares,
which
determines
the
rights
and
obligations
of
the
co-‐owners.
4. CIVIL
LAW
APPLIED:
Before
the
partition
of
a
land
or
thing
held
in
common,
no
individual
or
co-‐owner
can
claim
title
to
any
definite
portion
thereof.
All
that
the
co-‐
owner
has
is
an
ideal
or
abstract
quota
or
proportionate
share
in
the
entire
land
or
thing.
Article
493
of
the
Civil
Code
gives
the
owner
of
an
undivided
interest
in
the
property
the
right
to
freely
sell
and
dispose
of
it,
i.e.,
his
undivided
interest.
He
may
validly
lease
his
undivided
interest
to
a
third
party
independently
of
the
other
co-‐
owners.
But
he
has
no
right
to
sell
or
alienate
a
concrete,
specific
or
determinate
part
of
the
thing
owned
in
common
because
his
right
over
the
thing
is
represented
by
a
quota
or
ideal
portion
without
any
physical
adjudication.
5. APPLICATION
TO
THE
CASE
AT
BAR:
Although
assigned
an
aliquot
but
abstract
part
of
the
property,
the
metes
and
bounds
of
Lilian
Sanchez’
lot
has
not
been
designated.
As
she
was
not
a
party
to
the
Deed
of
Absolute
Sale
voluntarily
entered
into
by
the
other
co-‐owners,
her
right
to
1/6
of
the
property
must
be
respected.
Partition
needs
to
be
effected
to
protect
her
right
to
her
definite
share
and
determine
the
boundaries
of
her
property.
Such
partition
must
be
done
without
prejudice
to
the
rights
of
private
respondent
Virginia
Teria
as
buyer
of
the
5/6
portion
of
the
lot
under
dispute.
§