1) The basic situation: inheritance creates a co-ownership

In Philippine law, when a person dies, ownership of the estate’s assets (including land) is transmitted to the heirs from the moment of death, subject to the estate’s obligations (taxes, debts, etc.). Until the estate is settled and the specific properties are partitioned, the heirs typically hold the property in common—a co-ownership (pro indiviso), meaning:

No heir owns a physically identified portion yet (no “this half is mine” by metes and bounds).
Each heir owns an ideal/undivided share proportional to inheritance rights.
Acts affecting the property are constrained by co-ownership rules.

This co-ownership frame determines what a co-heir can sell or mortgage—and what they cannot.

2) What a co-heir may legally sell or mortgage (and the limit of that act)

A co-owner (including a co-heir before partition) may generally alienate, assign, or mortgage only their undivided share.

Key practical effect:

If a co-heir sells/mortgages only their ideal share, the buyer/mortgagee steps into the seller’s position as co-owner to that extent.
If the co-heir purports to sell/mortgage the entire property (or specific parts as if solely owned) without authority, the transaction is ineffective as to the other heirs’ shares.

What does that mean on the ground?

The buyer does not become sole owner of the whole property just because a deed says so.
At most, the buyer may acquire whatever share the selling heir truly had—if the deed can be construed as a transfer of that share and there is no other defect (fraud/forgery, void settlement, etc.).

3) Common “unauthorized” patterns (and why they matter)

Unauthorized sale/mortgage disputes usually fall into one (or more) of these patterns:

A. Sale/mortgage while title is still in the decedent’s name

A co-heir signs a deed as if owner of the entire property, even though no settlement/partition occurred.
The deed may be used to pressure other heirs or to attempt later registration.

Typical legal impact: ineffective against other heirs’ shares; buyer’s “ownership” is highly vulnerable.

B. Extra-judicial settlement (EJS) used to place title in one heir’s name, then sold/mortgaged

A co-heir executes an Extra-Judicial Settlement (sometimes with a “self-adjudication” affidavit) that falsely claims they are the only heir or that other heirs consented.
Title is transferred to that heir alone, then conveyed or mortgaged.

This is the most dangerous scenario because third parties often rely on the new title.

C. Forged signatures / fabricated consents / fake SPAs

The co-heir submits forged signatures of siblings/co-heirs on an EJS, deed of sale, deed of mortgage, or SPA (special power of attorney).

Forgery usually makes the document void, and can open both civil and criminal routes.

D. Mortgage to a bank using “clean” title obtained through questionable settlement

Banks often require a title in the mortgagor’s name.
If the mortgagor’s title is later attacked, the question becomes whether the bank is a mortgagee in good faith and what remedies remain.

4) Your legal position depends on one crucial fact: Was there already a partition?

If there is no partition yet

The property is still under co-ownership among heirs.

Consequences:

A co-heir cannot unilaterally dispose of the entire property.
A sale to a “stranger” may trigger legal redemption rights (explained below).
Partition is often the central remedy to finally separate shares.

If there is already a partition (judicial or valid extra-judicial partition)

Each heir owns a determinate portion or separate titled lot(s).

Consequences:

A co-heir can sell/mortgage what was adjudicated to them.
Disputes shift from co-ownership rules to validity of partition documents, titles, boundaries, and fraud issues.

5) Rights of other heirs when a co-heir sells to a stranger: Legal redemption

Philippine law recognizes situations where co-heirs/co-owners can “buy back” a share sold to an outsider, to keep the property within the family or the co-ownership stable.

A. Redemption by co-heirs (before partition)

When a co-heir sells their hereditary rights to a stranger before partition, other co-heirs may have the right to redeem within a short period from written notice of the sale.

B. Redemption among co-owners (co-ownership context)

When a co-owner sells their undivided share to a third person, the other co-owners may have a similar redemption right, again typically counted from written notice.

Practical notes:

The redemption period is short and procedural requirements matter.
“Notice” is not just rumor; written notice is pivotal in many disputes.
Redemption is a remedy even when the sale is not “fraudulent”—it’s a statutory right.

6) Civil remedies: how heirs challenge an unauthorized sale/mortgage

The correct remedy depends on the documents used, the status of the title, and whether third parties are involved.

Remedy set 1: Assert co-ownership limits

If a co-heir sold/mortgaged the whole property without authority:

Action to declare the deed ineffective as to your shares
Reconveyance of your portion/share (if title was transferred)
Partition (to end the co-ownership and isolate shares)

Typical court outcomes:

Deed recognized only up to the seller’s undivided share (if at all)
Buyer declared a co-owner only to the extent of the seller’s share
Partition ordered

Remedy set 2: Annul/attack the settlement instrument (EJS / self-adjudication)

If the fraud route was: “fake EJS → title to one heir → sale/mortgage,” then challenging the EJS is often essential.

Possible actions/causes:

Annulment/nullity of extra-judicial settlement or self-adjudication
Cancellation of title and reconveyance
Quieting of title (to remove clouds on ownership)

Rule 74 (Extra-judicial settlement) issues often raised:

False claim of being the only heir
Lack of required participation/consent of all heirs
Failure to comply with publication requirements (where applicable)
Prejudice to heirs/creditors

Remedy set 3: Fraud/forgery-based nullity and reconveyance

If signatures were forged or consents fabricated:

Declaration of nullity of forged deeds/SPAs
Cancellation of resulting transfers/annotations
Reconveyance or restoration of co-ownership status

Forgery is powerful because it attacks the root: a forged instrument generally transfers no rights from the person whose signature was forged.

Remedy set 4: Injunctions and protective annotations

To prevent further transfers while the case is pending:

Preliminary injunction / TRO (to stop sale, mortgage, construction, eviction, etc.)
Notice of lis pendens (annotation that the property is under litigation)
Adverse claim (in certain situations)
Caveats through registry procedures (depending on the posture of the title and available annotations)

These do not decide ownership by themselves, but they can stop “flipping” the property to additional buyers.

Remedy set 5: Damages

Heirs often seek:

Actual damages (lost rentals, expenses, property impairment)
Moral damages (in appropriate cases)
Exemplary damages (when fraud is egregious)
Attorney’s fees (when allowed)

7) Mortgage complications: banks, good faith, and what heirs can still do

Mortgages introduce a “secured creditor” who may claim strong protections—especially if the mortgagee relied on a Torrens title.

Key issues courts examine:

Was the mortgagor the registered owner?
Were there red flags that should have put the mortgagee on notice (e.g., family in possession, contradictory documents, suspicious settlement, missing heirs, hurried transfers, inconsistent IDs)?
Was the title clean on its face at the time of mortgage?
Was the mortgage based on forged documents or merely unauthorized disposition of co-owned property?

Possible outcomes vary by facts:

Mortgage may be valid only up to the mortgagor’s legitimate share.
Mortgage may be upheld if the mortgagee is deemed in good faith and relied on a clean title—leaving heirs to pursue the wrongdoer for damages (and in some cases, statutory remedies tied to the Torrens system when applicable).
If forgery is proven, heirs often press for nullity and cancellation—but third-party protection doctrines can complicate the end result when an innocent party later dealt with a registered owner.

8) Procedural roadmap: what heirs typically prove in court

Unauthorized sale/mortgage cases are evidence-heavy. Common proof points include:

A. Heirship and estate facts

Death certificate of the decedent
Proof of relationship (birth certificates, marriage certificates)
Family tree and identification of compulsory heirs (where relevant)

B. Property identity and history

Title (OCT/TCT), tax declarations, cadastral maps, technical descriptions
Transfer history (RD certified true copies)
Possession evidence (who occupied, paid taxes, collected rents)

C. The contested instruments

Deed of sale/mortgage, EJS, affidavits, SPAs
Notarial entries (notarial register, document numbers, competent witness details)
Publication proof (for EJS, where required)
BIR/estate tax documentation trail (when relevant to the transfer)

D. Fraud/forgery proof (when alleged)

Handwriting/signature examination
Inconsistencies in IDs, community tax certificates, acknowledgment details
Witness testimony about lack of appearance before notary
Proof that supposed signatories were elsewhere / deceased / abroad

9) Prescription, laches, and timing traps (practical and legal)

Timing is often decisive.

Redemption rights have short periods triggered by written notice.
Actions based on fraud may have prescriptive periods counted from discovery, but courts also look at issuance of titles and when the cause of action accrued.
Reconveyance actions can be time-barred depending on whether the claim is framed as based on an implied trust, fraud, or nullity, and on when the title was issued.
Even when a claim is not technically prescribed, laches (unreasonable delay causing prejudice) can defeat it in equity.

Because outcomes depend on the exact theory pleaded and facts (e.g., whether the instrument is void vs voidable; whether title transferred; whether third parties intervened), parties typically align the complaint carefully to match the strongest ground.

10) Criminal angles (often parallel, but distinct from civil outcomes)

Unauthorized sale/mortgage by a co-heir can cross into criminal territory, especially where documents are falsified.

Common allegations:

Estafa (e.g., defrauding buyers/other heirs by pretending sole ownership)
Falsification of public documents (e.g., forged deeds, forged EJS, forged acknowledgments)
Use of falsified documents
Perjury (false statements in sworn affidavits)
Notarial administrative liability (when notarization is irregular)

Important practical point: criminal cases punish offenders; they do not automatically restore title without corresponding civil relief, though they can strongly support civil claims.

11) Special situations that change the analysis

A. Property is part of the family home

Family home protections affect execution and creditor claims, but not a blanket shield against intra-heir ownership disputes. It may, however, complicate enforcement and remedies.

B. The property is conjugal/community property of the decedent and spouse

If the surviving spouse has property regime rights, the estate may only include the decedent’s share after liquidation. A co-heir selling “the whole” without this accounting creates deeper defects.

C. Some heirs are minors, absent, abroad, or unknown

Extra-judicial settlement becomes riskier and can require judicial safeguards (e.g., guardianship participation), otherwise it is more vulnerable to attack.

D. Agrarian/tenanted land

If covered by agrarian laws or tenancy relationships, partition and transfer can be restricted or subject to additional approvals and rights.

12) Practical case patterns and likely legal consequences

Pattern 1: Co-heir sells entire inherited land to a buyer; no title transfer yet

Sale generally cannot bind other heirs’ shares.
Buyer may be treated as acquiring only the seller’s undivided share (if any).
Other heirs may sue for declaration of ineffectiveness as to their shares and pursue partition.

Pattern 2: Co-heir uses fake EJS to get title, then sells to buyer in good faith

Heirs often attack EJS and subsequent transfer.
Buyer raises good faith reliance on title.
Court resolution turns on fraud proof, procedural defects, notice/red flags, and third-party doctrines.

Pattern 3: Forged deed/mortgage documents

Forgery can render instruments void.
But downstream innocent purchasers/mortgagees may complicate restoration if clean titles were later issued—fact-specific outcomes are common.

13) Litigation posture: choosing the right “theory”

Heirs usually win or lose based on whether the complaint matches the real defect:

Co-ownership limit theory: “He could only sell his share.”
Nullity theory: “The document is void (forgery / simulated / illegal).”
Fraud theory: “We were deceived; transfer should be undone.”
Settlement defect theory: “EJS/self-adjudication is invalid; title transfer collapsed.”
Redemption theory: “Even if valid, we redeem the share.”

Misalignment can lead to dismissal, wrong prescription computation, or incomplete relief.

14) Registry of Deeds realities: why paper control matters

Because land disputes in the Philippines often revolve around the Torrens system:

Whoever gets a transaction registered gains powerful leverage.
Unregistered claims can be cut off by later dealings if third-party protection applies.
Early annotation (lis pendens/adverse claim where available) can prevent the property from being repeatedly transferred while the dispute is pending.

15) The bottom line rule in inherited co-ownership

Before partition, no single heir owns the whole, so no single heir can validly dispose of the whole without authority from the others (or a proper settlement/partition). Unauthorized sale or mortgage is typically attacked by:

limiting the transfer to the seller’s undivided share,
annulling fraudulent settlement documents,
cancelling titles obtained through defective or forged instruments,
reconveying shares to rightful heirs,
and partitioning to end the co-ownership.

The hardest cases are those involving registered titles already transferred to third parties and mortgages to institutional lenders, where fact-specific good faith doctrines and registry principles heavily influence outcomes.