Republic of the Philippines The action was proceeded with against the purchasers and the Court of First

the purchasers and the Court of First Instance of

SUPREME COURT Bulacan, before whom the matter was heard, rendered judgment holding that the fish ponds
Manila in question pertained to the intestate estate of the late Moises Ramirez, and that the sale
effected by the said Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia to the defendants,
EN BANC Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran, was null and void. The court decreed that
possession of the fish ponds be restored to the plaintiff, Mauricio Ramirez as administrator
of the property of the late Moises Ramirez, and accorded him the right to recover from the
G.R. No. L-5075 December 1, 1909 defendants 200 pesos per annum, as loss and damages, to commence from the day they
were notified of the complaint, without prejudice to their right, which was reserved to them,
MAURICIO RAMIREZ, administrator of the estate of MOISES RAMIREZ, of action against the said vendors; the court also sentenced the defendants to pay the costs.
deceased, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. From the above judgment the defendants appealed. The appeal having been heard before
SIMEON BAUTISTA, ET AL., defendants-appellants. this court, together with the respective allegations of the parties, it appears that the
appellants have made the following assignments of error to the judgment of the lower court:
Perfecto J. Salas Rodriguez for appellants.
Teodoro Gonzalez for appellee. I. In that it was not in the judgment the children of the late Moises Ramirez, of both the first
and the second marriage, had become owners in common of the two fish ponds in question
by reason of the death of their ancestor.

II. In that it was found therein that, without a partition having been made of the property left
ARELLANO, C. J.: by Moises Ramirez, the children of his first marriage could not validly have transmitted their
rights of partition in common to the property which is the subject of this suit.
The subject of this complaint is two fish ponds, left by Moises Ramirez on his demise, and
subsequently illegally sold. This action was brought for the purpose of having the sale III. In that sale of the thirteen-sixteenths of the two parcels of land in question was not
declared to be void, to secure the recovery of possession of the fish ponds, their restitution declared valid, and void as to three-sixteenths thereof.lawphi1.net
to the administrator of the estate of the deceased owner, and indemnity for damages.
IV. In that it was not found that, as a result of the evidence, the plaintiff had no legal capacity
Moises Ramirez, who died intestate in February, 1900, was married twice. By the first to bring suit.
marriage he had five children, named Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia; by
the second marriage three, to wit, Cirila, Isabel, and Serapio, of whom Isabel alone survives. The appeal having been heard and the evidence reviewed, the following facts must be held
At the time of his death he left two fish ponds in the sitio of Tagalag, in the municipality of to have been proven:
Polo, Province of Bulacan, the specific details of which are described and admitted in the
case. The two wives are also dead.
That Moises Ramirez was first married to Apolinaria Guillermo and by her had the above-
mentioned five children, Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia Ramirez.
The children of the first marriage, Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia, sold the
two fish ponds on the 28th of November, 1901, to Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran
for the sum of 1,100 pesos. The only surviving child of the second marriage, Isabel, was not That by his second wife, Alejandra Capistrano, he had three children, as already stated,
a party to said sale, hence the suit now filed by the administrator of the intestate estate to named Cirila, Isabel, and Serapio Ramirez.
have the sale declared null and void and the fish ponds restored to the intestate estate of
Moises Ramirez. That Moises Ramirez and his two wives are now dead, as are also the two children of the
second marriage, Cirila and Serapio. Isabel, a girl of about eight years of age, alone
The two purchasers proved their purchase by two documents, one of which was a private survives.
and other a notarial one executed for the purpose. When summoned to answer the
complaint they requested that the vendors be cited also, but the latter although so That the two fish ponds in question were acquired by Moises Ramirez during the time of his
summoned did not appear at trial. first marriage with Apolinaria Guillermo, on the 17th of March, 1895, which is the date of the
title by composition with the Spanish Government that constitutes his title of ownership.
On this supposition, the two fish ponds in litigation belonged to the conjugal partnership moment when the coheirs assumed the entire representation of the person of the
between Moises Ramirez and Apolinaria Guillermo. (Civil Code, art. 1401, par. 1.) deceased with respect to all of his property, rights, and actions, both active and
passive. (3 Manresa, 357.)
By virtue of the conjugal partnership, these two fish ponds belonged half to the husband and
half to the wife upon the dissolution of the marriage by reason of the death of either of With regard to the community of property the Civil Code provides that
them.itc@alf (Civil Code, art. 1392.)
Every coowner shall have full ownership of his part and in the fruits and benefits
Consequently, upon the death of Apolinaria Guillermo one-half of the fish ponds belonged to derived therefrom, and he therefore may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, and even
Moises Ramirez, and the other half, that belonging to Apolinaria Guillermo, to the children of substitute another person in its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question.
the said married couple, Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia, as the lawful But the effect of the alienation or mortgage, with regard to the coowners, shall be
heirs of their mother. (Civil Code, art. 931.) limited to the share which may be awarded him in the division on the dissolution of
the community. (Art. 399, Civil Code.)
Inasmuch as the said property continued undivided between the father on the one hand and
the children on the other, and as the conjugal partnership had terminated, a community of If Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia Ramirez could lawfully alienate their
property maintained the father and the children in the joint dominion. (Civil Code, art. 392.) respective shares in the joint ownership of the two parcels of land sold to the defendants,
Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran, it is evident that the sale of thirteen-sixteenths of
By the second marriage three additional children survived the father, and upon his death the the said two lands could not be void; the sale of the three-sixteenths which belonged to
first five children, together with the latter three, became his heirs, and all are entitled to Isabel alone is illegal, as alleged in the third assignment of error.
divide the said half share belonging to their father into eight parts.
Therefore, the sale described in the public instrument of the 29th of November, 1901, of the
By the death of two of these last three children, their respective shares fell to Isabel sole thirteen-sixteenths which belonged to the vendors is valid, and that of the three-sixteenths
heir, inasmuch as they were children of the same parents. (Civil Code art. 947.) which pertain to Isabel, who neither by herself nor by means of another took part in said
sale is null.
In view of these considerations, the claim of the appellants is entirely legal that thirteen-
sixteenths should be apportioned among the children of the first marriage to wit, eight as Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran succeed to the vendors and are subrogated thereto
their own, already inherited from their mother, Apolinaria Guillermo, and five subsequently in the joint ownership of the two fish ponds sold; their shares are the same that were owned
inherited from their deceased father, Moises Ramirez and three-sixteenths should be the by the vendors, that is, thirteen-sixteenths.
share of the three children of the second marriage, which accrued to Isabel Ramirez.
The whole of the two fish ponds can not pertain to the intestate estate of Moises Ramirez,
Therefore, in the succession of Moises Ramirez that is now opened the whole of these but merely the half that belonged to him and which at his death became a part of his
fractional parts can not be included, but only the eight which actually constitute his share in intestate estate.
the community of property maintained by him with his children of the first marriage, Rosa,
Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia, since the death of his first wife. Intestate succession can not disturb the lawful holder in his possession of property, which it
is thought should constitute a part of the hereditary property.
The above children of the first marriage, upon the death of Moises Ramirez, continued the
aforesaid community of property with their three half sisters and brother, Cirila, Isabel, and Only in the event of a division of the common property, or upon dissolution of the community
Serapio; that is to say, now with Isabel, their share being thirteen-sixteenths, and that of of property now existing between the purchasers, Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran,
Isabel three sixteenths. on the one hand and Isabel Ramirez on the other, can the fruits, rents, or benefits received,
and the part thereof, as well as of the expenses, corresponding to the coowner Isabel
The present status of the two fish ponds in question is that of community of property. Ramirez in maintaining the community, be considered, as well as of the rights and actions
that may pertain to the purchasers as against the vendors (who have taken no part in these
proceedings), by reason of the total consideration paid for the two properties, and other
It is certain that when two or more heirs appear at the opening of a testamentary obligations which may have arisen because of the sale.
succession, or during the progress of the settlement of an intestate estate, and
each turns out to be an owner pro indiviso of the inheritance, by reason of the
share he may be entitled to receive, a community of property then exists between The present cause of action and the complaint based thereon being limited to the recovery
the participants as long as the estate remains undivided . . . and nothing more of the two properties in question, and the restitution of the possession thereof to the
tangible can be imagined than this necessary community, which arose at the administrator of the intestate estate of Moises Ramirez, in consequence of the latter's
hereditary succession, it is evident that neither recovery of possession nor the restitution assumed the entire representation of the person of the deceased with respect to all of his property,
asked for can be granted, as the defendants are the legitimate proprietors and possessors rights, and actions, both active and passive.
in joint ownership of the greater portion of the common property claimed.
2. Every co-owner shall have full ownership of his part and in the fruits and benefits derived there
While the question of the nullity of the entire sale was previously raised in the action, the from, and he therefore may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in
illegality of the sale of three-sixteenths of the common property made by the vendors is its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question. But the effect of
evident. the alienation or mortgage, with regard to the co-owners, shall be limited to the share which may
be awarded him in the division on the dissolution of the community.
In view of the foregoing, it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from should only be
affirmed in so far as it declares that the sale made by Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, Applying the said rules, the death of the mother vested in the children of
and Ignacia Ramirez of the three-sixteenths parts belonging to Isabel Ramirez in the two the first marriage their mothers half share. The death of Moises entitled his eight children to a share
fish ponds claimed is null and void; in all other respects the said judgment is hereby each in the fishponds. Therefore, Isabella, being the lone survivor of her siblings, was entitled to a
reversed, without any special ruling as to the costs of both instances. So ordered. 3/16 share of the total property.

Ramirez v. Bautista The Court held that Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia Ramirez could have lawfully
G.R. No. L-5075 December 1, 1909 alienated their respective shares in the joint ownership of the two parcels of land. The sale to the
defendants, Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran was the sale of 13/16 of the said two properties
FACTS: and could not have been void. It was the sale of the 3/16 which belonged to Isabela alone which
was void.
Moises Ramirez, who died intestate, was married twice. In his first marriage, he had five (5)
children, named Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia. Under his second marriage, he had Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran succeed to the vendors should have been validly subrogated
three (3) children namely Cirila, Isabel, and Serapio, of whom Isabel alone survives. His wives in the joint ownership of the two
predeceased him and at the time of his death he left two fish ponds.

The children of the first marriage sold the two fish ponds, to Simeon Bautista
and Raymundo Duranfor P1,100.00. The only surviving child of the second marriage, Isabel, was not
a party to said sale. A case was filed by the administrator of the intestate estate to have the sale
declared null and void and the fish ponds restored to the intestate estate of Moises.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sale was valid.

RULING:

Yes. It was determined by the Court that the status of the two fish ponds was of community of
property. The fishponds were acquired during the first marriage. Therefore the conjugal gains on
property should have applied.

The Court laid down the following rules:

1. When two or more heirs appear at the opening of a testamentary succession, or during the
progress of the settlement of an intestate estate, and each turns out to be an owner pro indiviso of
the inheritance, by reason of the share he may be entitled to receive, a community of property then
exists between the participants as long as the estate remains undivided and nothing more tangible
can be imagined than this necessary community, which arose at the moment when the coheirs