HEIRS OF THE LATE GERRY* ECARMA, NAMELY: AVELINA SUIZA-ECARMA,
DENNIS ECARMA, JERRY LYN ECARMA PENA, ANTONIO ECARMA AND
NATALIA ECARMA SANGALANG, PETITIONERS, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND
RENATO A. ECARMA, RESPONDENTS.
08 June 2016| G.R. No. 193374
Perez, J:
Digested by: Neil R. Soldevilla
FACTS:
Spouses Natalio and Arminda owned 4 properties designated as Kitanlad, Cuyapo
and Lala consisting of 2 lots. They have 7 children among them were Gerry Ecarma
and private respondent Renato Ecarma. Natalio predeceased Arminda, and
therefater their children executed Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate. No physical
division of properties was effected and they remained in co-ownership even after
the death of Arminda. Renato Ecarma as the Special Administrator in the intestate
proceedings filed a Project of Partition because of the conflict between Gerry and
the other heirs over actual division of their inherited properties. The legal heirs
except Gerry expressed their desire to have the property partitioned.
Gerry objected because the proposed partition is not feasible, impractical and
detrimental. The planned partition is not accordance with the wishes of decedents,
but however, it was denied by the lower court. He brought up the case to the CA but
before the controversy has been settled, he died. Therefore, the heirs of Gerry
Ecarma filed their Appellant’s Brief in substitution of the deceased.
ISSUE: Was the Order of Partition proper where one of the co - owners refuse to
accede to such proposed partition on the ground that it is not feasible, impractical
and detrimental?
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Yes. Upon Arminda's death, her heirs' rights to the succession (covering Arminda's
share in the subject properties) vested and their co-ownership over the subject
properties has consolidated by operation of law. Effectively, without a valid will of
Arminda, and as Arminda's compulsory heirs, herein parties (specifically Gerry
Ecarma prior to his death and substitution by herein petitioners) all ipso facto co-
owned the subject properties in equal proportion being compulsory heirs of the
deceased spouses Natalio and Arminda. Their objection to the actual partition
notwithstanding, herein petitioners and even Rodolfo Ecarma cannot compel the
other co-heirs to remain in perpetual co-ownership over the subject properties. that
petitioners have been careful not to proffer that the subject properties are
indivisible or that physical division of thereof would render such unserviceable since
Article 495 of the Civil Code provides the remedy of termination of co-ownership in
accordance with Article 498 of the same Code, i.e. sale of the property and
distribution of the proceeds. Therefore, petitioners' absolute opposition to the
partition of the subject properties which are co-owned has no basis in law. As mere
co-owners, herein petitioners, representing the share of the deceased Gerry
Ecarma, cannot preclude the other owners likewise compulsory heirs of the
deceased spouses Natalio and Arminda, from exercising all incidences of their full
ownership.
xx END OF DIGEST xx
