Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

[57] YTURRALDE V CA pacto de retro sale executed by Margarita expressly stipulates that she only

G.R. No. L-31586 | February 28, 1972 | Makasiar, J. sold all her rights, interests and participation in the lot covered by O.C.T. No.
2356. Margarita could not, for she had no right to, sell the entire lot, which is
PROVISIONS: registered under O.C.T. No. 2356 "in the name of Francisco Yturralde married
● ART. 1463, NCC. The sole owner of a thing may sell an undivided to Margarita de los Reyes." Said lot is acknowledged by herein petitioners as
interest therein. the conjugal property of Francisco and Margarita.
● ART. 1464, NCC. In the case of fungible goods, there may be a sale of
an undivided share of a specific mass, though the seller purports to DOCTRINE: The petition for consolidation should not be granted. Margarita
sell and the buyer to buy a definite number, weight or measure of the could not sell the entire lot because she had no right to do so. What she sold
goods in the mass, and though the number, weight or measure of the were only her “rights, interests, and participation” in the lot. The lot was
goods in the mass, and though the number, weight or measure of the conjugal property of Yturalde and Margarita, so what she disposed of under the
goods in the mass is undetermined. By such a sale the buyer becomes pacto de retro sale was only her conjugal share + her successional right as
owner in common of such a share of the mass as the number, weight Yturalde’s heir.
or measure bought bears to the number, weight or measure of the
mass. If the mass contains less than the number, weight or measure FACTS:
bought, the buyer becomes the owner of the whole mass and the ● Francisco Yturralde and wife Margarita owned a parcel of
seller is bound to make good the deficiency from goods of the same agricultural land located in Guilinan, Zamboanga del Sur containing
kind and quality, unless a contrary intent appears. (n) an area of 14.1079 hectares.
● ART. 493, NCC. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his ● Francisco died intestate survived by his wife and 9 children.
part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may ● Margarita contracted a second marriage with Francisco’s brother,
therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another Damaso.
person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But ○ Damaso and Margarita executed a deed of sale with a right
the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co- of repurchase in favor of Isabelo Rebollos for P1,715.
owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in ● The spouses failed to exercise right of repurchase within the 3-year
the division upon the termination of the co- ownership. (399) period agreed upon.
● Margarita died
SUMMARY: Francisco and Margarita Yturralde owned a parcel of land in ● Rebollos filed a petition for consolidation of ownership naming as
Zamboanga del Sur. After Francisco died intestate, Margarita contracted a respondents the children (of Margarita) and Damaso
second marriage with Damaso, Francisco’s brother. The couple executed a ● Summons were served on all respondents but 3 of the children –
deed of sale with right to repurchase in favor of Isabelo Rebollos (private Josefina, Zosima and Ramon
respondent). The spouses failed to buy back the property within the agreed ● The respondents were declared in default and Rebollos filed a
period. For this reason, Rebollos filed a petition for consolidation of ownership. motion to order Montano (one of the children) to deliver and
The three children herein were sent summons and were declared in default. surrender the owner’s duplicate of the OCT
Rebollos filed a motion to order one of the children to deliver and surrender the ● Montano was arrested for failure to comply but this was lifted
owner’s duplicate of the OCT (Original Cert of Title). A writ of execution was ● A writ of execution was issued and subsequently, Respondent
issued and subsequently, Respondent Judge ordered the demolition of all Judge ordered the demolition of all buildings not belonging to
buildings not belonging to Rebollos found in the premises. The issue here is Rebollos found in the premises
WON the action for consolidation should be granted. The SC held NO. The ● Petitioners instituted present proceedings with the Court of
Appeals and a writ of preliminary injunction was issued
● However before judgement with the CA, Rebollos issued a new TCT
in favour of vendee Pilar Reyes
● CA concluded that the thing sought to be restrained has already
been done and the title cannot be collaterally attacked.
● Thus, this petition.

ISSUE w/ HOLDING:
WON the action for consolidation should be granted? - NO
● It should be brought against all indispensable parties and they must
be properly summoned. In the case at bar, 3 children were not.
● As the petition of private respondent Rebollos sought to divest all of
them of their undivided interest in the entire agricultural land, which
undivided interest was never alienated by them to Rebollos, herein
petitioners became indispensable parties.
● If anyone of the party defendants, who are all indispensable parties is
not properly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the
entire case and its decision and orders therein are null and void.
● The pacto de retro sale executed by Margarita de los Reyes "casada
en segundas nuptias con Damaso Yturralde," expressly stipulates
that she only sold all her rights, interests and participation in the lot
covered by O.C.T. No. 2356.
● Margarita could not, for she had no right to, sell the entire lot, which
is registered under O.C.T. No. 2356 "in the name of Francisco
Yturralde married to Margarita de los Reyes." Said lot is
acknowledged by herein petitioners as the conjugal property of
Francisco and Margarita
● What she validly disposed of under the aforesaid pacto de retro sale
of 1952 was only her conjugal share in the lot plus her successional
right as heir in the conjugal share of her deceased husband Francisco.
● The 3 children, Josefina, Zosima and Ramon, are essential parties,
without whom no valid judgment may be rendered, is further
underscored by the fact that the agricultural land in question was
owned by them in common and pro indiviso with their mother and their
brothers and sisters and was not then as now physically partitioned
among them.

Похожие интересы