This preview shows page 117 - 119 out of 155 pages.
fell under the classification “through strategy or stealth.” Entry into the land effectedclandestinely without the knowledge of the other co-owners could be categorized aspossession by stealth. Moreover, respondent’s act of getting only the consent of oneco-owner, her sister Norma Maligaya, and allowing the latter to stay in the constructedhouse, can in fact be considered as a strategy which she utilized in order to enterinto the co-owned property.6. Protest against acts of majority which are prejudicial to minority7. Exercise legal redemption8. Ask for partitionD. Assignees of a co-owner who do not exercise the rights affordedto them by Art. 497 of the Civil Code during the partition ofthe property owned in common are bound by the final andexecutory decision of the court as regards the partition of suchproperty.Panganiban vs. OamilG.R. No. 14931. January 22, 2008. [542 SCRA 166 (2008)]HELD:Under a co-ownership, the ownership of an undivided thing or rightbelongs to different persons. During the existence of the co-ownership, no individualcan claim title to any definite portion of the community property until the partition
112IBP JOURNALEduardo A. Labitagthereof; and prior to the partition, all that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstractquota or proportionate share in the entire land or thing. Before partition in a co-ownership, every co-owner has the absolute ownership of his undivided interest inthe common property. The co-owner is free to alienate, assign, or mortgage thisundivided interest, except as to purely personal rights. The effect of such transfer islimited to the portion which may be awarded to him upon partition of the property.Under Art. 497 of the Civil Code, in the event of a division or partition ofproperty owned in common, assignees of one or more of the co-owners may takepart in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effectedwithout their concurrence. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed,unless there had been fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formalopposition presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor orassignor to maintain its validity.E.Partition may be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strongto support the presumption. Thus, after a long possession inseveralty, a deed of partition may be presumed.Quimpo, Sr. vs. Abad Vda. de BeltranG.R. No. 16095. February 13, 2008. [545 SCRA 174 (2008)]FACTS:Estaquia Perfecto-Abad was the owner of several parcels of land inGoa, Camarines Sur. When she died, her grandchildren, Joaquin Quimpo and therespondents, inherited the parcels of land. In 1966, petitioner and respondentsundertook an oral partition of parcel III (San Jose Property) and parcel IV. Half ofthe properties were given to petitioner and the other half to the respondent. Two ofthe respondents occupied their respective shares in the San Jose property and installedtheir tenants over their share in parcel IV. Joaquin, on the other hand, became theadministrator of the remaining undivided properties and of the shares of respondentsDanilo, Marites, Anita and Helen, who were still minors at that time. In 1989 Danilo,