Wilfredo v. Paulo Floresca

Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed that spouses Aromin's ownership of Cad. Lot No. 4894 was limited to Paulo Floresca's one-half share due to an existing co-ownership established through a compromise agreement in a prior partition case. Despite not being parties to the partition case, the Aromins were bound by res judicata as Paulo's successors-in-interest. The Court rejected their claim of being buyers in good faith, noting their prior knowledge of the property's co-ownership status and failure to investigate before purchase. The decision emphasized that co-owners cannot alienate shares of other co-owners without consent, and buyers of unregistered land purchase at their own peril. The ruling protected the property rights of the Floresca siblings while limiting the Aromins to Paulo's legitimate share under the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership.