8/11/2019 Case Digests Coownership

1/3

Del Blanco vs. IAC

Doctrine: - With the distribution agreed upon

each of the co-owner is a co-owner of the whole, and

in this sense, over the whole he exercises the right of

dominion, but he is at the same time the sole owner

of a portion because until physical division is

effected such portion is merely an ideal share, not

concretely determined.

- A co-owner cannot, without the

conformity of the other co-owners, adjudicate to

himself a determinate portion of the lot owned in

common, as his share therein, to the exclusion of

other co-owners. It is a basic principle in the law of

co-ownership that no individual co-owner can claim

any definite portion thereof. It is therefore of no

moment that some of the co-owners have succeeded

in securing cadastral titles in their names to some

portions of the islands owned by them.

Facts: Some of the petitioners in this case are in

actual possession and enjoyment of several portions

of the Cagbalite island. Conversely, the respondentsinclude heirs and successors-in-interest of the

original co-owners of Cagbalite island.

This case arose because the private

respondents brought a special action for partition.

They brought the petition because some of the

petitioners who are also co-owners have succeeded in

securing cadastral titles in their names to some

portions of the Island occupied by them.

The petitioners claim that the co-ownership

was already terminated because the Cagbalite Island

has already been partitioned.

Issue: Has the co-ownership been terminated?

Held: No. Firstly, there is nothing in all fouragreements that suggests that actual or physical

partition of the Island had really been made by either

the original owners or their heirs or successors-in-

interest. What was agreed upon was the sharing

proportion of the benefits derived from the Island and

the distribution of the Island. With the distribution

agreed upon each of the co-owner is a co-owner of

the whole, and in this sense, over the whole he

exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same

time the sole owner of a portion, which is truly

abstract, because until physical division is effected

such portion is merely an ideal share, not concretely

determined.There need not be a physical partition; a

distribution of the Island even in a state of indiviso or

was sufficient in order that a co-owner may validly

sell his portion of the co-owned property. The sale of

part of a particular lot thus co-owner by one co-

owner was within his rightpro-indiviso is valid in its

entirety but he may not convey a physical portion

with boundaries of the land owned in common.

The actual possession of some of the

petitioners does not prove that the co-ownership has

already been terminated. WHY? Because a co-owner

cannot, without the conformity of the other co-

owners, adjudicate to himself a determinate portion

of the lot owned in common, as his share therein, to

the exclusion of other co-owners. It is a basic

principle in the law of co-ownership that no

individual co-owner can claim any definite portion

thereof. It is therefore of no moment that some of the

co-owners have succeeded in securing cadastral titles

in their names to some portions of the islands owned

by them.

Secondly, an action for partition does not

prescribe. Co-owners cannot acquire by prescription

the share of the other co-owners, absent a clear

repudiation of the co-ownership clearly

communicated to the other co-owners.

*An action for partition does not prescribe.

Article 497 provides that the assigness of the co-

owners may take part in the partition of the commonproperty,and Article 494 provides that each co-owner

may demand at any time the partition of the common

property, a provision which implies that the action to

demand partition is imprescriptible or cannot be

barred by laches. An action for partition does not lie

except when the co-ownership is properly repudiated

by the co-owner.

Pardell v. Bartolome

Doctrine: Each co-owner of a realty has the power to

exercise his rights over the whole property and may

use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than

that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners,for the reason that, until a division be made, the

respective part of heach holder cannot be determined

and every one of the co-owners exercises, together

with his other co-participants, joint ownership over

the property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of

the same.

Facts: The petitioners Ricardo Pardell and Vicenta

Ortiz are a couple. The latter is the sister of one of the

respondents Matilde Ortiz, who is the wife of her co-

respondent, Gaspar Bartolome.

The case arose because the petitioners filed

a complaint for the delay in the partition and delivery

of the said properties due to the respondents unkeptpromises and other excuses.

Issues:

1.

Is the respondent, Matilde Ortiz, coowner of

a house, with her husband, entitled to reside

therein, without paying to her coowner,

herein petitioner, one-half of the rents which

the upper story would have produced, had in

been rented to a stranger?

8/11/2019 Case Digests Coownership

2/3

2.

Is the respondent, Bartolome, husband of the

coowner, liable for the use as an office, of

the lower floor of the same house?

3.

Is the petitioner liable for the work

undertaken by the respondent for the

complete repair of a building?

4.

Is the respondent, Bartolome, husband of the

coowner entitled to the payment of any

remuneration for his administration of the

property of common ownership?

Held:

1. Yes, the respondents are entitled to reside

therein without paying rent. Article 486

provides that (e)ach coowner may use the

things owned in common, provided he uses

them in accordance with their object and in

such manner as not to injure the interests of

the community nor prevent the coowners

from utilizing them according to their

rights. In the case at bar, the respondents

who occupied the upper story, designed foruse as dwelling, did not cause any detriment

to the interests of the community property

nor did they prevent her sister, Vicenta,

from utilizing the said upper story according

to her rights.

2. Yes, the respondents are liable for the use of

the ground floor as an office because it is to

the detriment of the petitioner coowner,

Vicenta, who did not receive of the rent

which those quarters could and should have

produced had they been occupied by a

stranger, in the same manner that rent was

obtained from the rooms on the lower floorthat were used as stores. Therefore, the

respondents must pay the petitioners of

the total amount of rents.

3. Yes, the petitioners are liable for the

necessary repair. Article 485 and 488

provide that each co-owner shall have a

right to compel the other co-owners to

contribute to the expenses of preservation of

the thing or right owned in common

proportional to their respective interests.

4.

No, the respondent Bartolome is not entitled

to the payment of any remuneration because

the law does not allow him anycompensation as such voluntary

administrator. He is merely entitled to a

reimbursement for such actual and necessary

expenditures as he may have made on the

undivided properties and an indemnity for

the damages he may have suffered while

acting in that capacity, since at all events it

was his duty to care for and preserve the

said property.

Caro v CA

The petitioner in this case is Luz Caro, a buyer of 1/3

undivided portion over a parcel of land, which was

originally co-owned by three brothersAlfredo,

Mario, and Benjamin. Conversely, the private

respondent is Basilia Lahorra, the surviving wife of

one of the co-owners, Mario. She, together with her

father-in-law, Saturnino Benito were subsequently

appointed as joint administrators of Marios estate.

This case arose because the private

respondent filed an action to nullify the sale of one of

the co-owners, Benjamin, of his 1/3 undivided

portion over said parcels of land, with the consent of

Saturnino and Alfredo.

Respondent claims that she has a right of

redemption1over said parcel of land.

Petitioner claims, on the contrary, that the

right sought to be exercised by private respondent in

the case assumes that the land in question is under

co-ownership. There was an agreement of partition,

though oral, is valid and consequently binding uponthe parties. Such co-ownership has already been

terminated when said land was partitioned and

subdivided.

Issue:Is there co-ownership?

Held: No. Once the property is subdivided and

distributed among the co-owners, the community has

terminated and there is no reason to sustain any right

of legal redemption.

The court reiterated the doctrine of another

case: The right of redemption under Article1620 may

be exercised only before partition. In this case the

right was asserted not only after partition but after

the property inherited had actually been subdividedinto several parcels which were assigned by lot to the

several heir.

Bail on-Casil ao v. CA

Doctrine:

Pursuant to Article 495, NCC, no co-owner

shall be obliged to remain in the co-

ownership. Such co-owner may demand at

any time the partition of the thing owned in

common, insofar as his share is concerned.

The Court has interpreted said provision to

mean that the action for partition is

imprescriptible or cannot be barred byprescription. For Article 494 explicitly

1 Art. 1620- A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of

redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or any of

them, are sold to a third person. If the price of alienation is grossly

excessive, the petitioner shall pay only a reasonable price.Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the

right of redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share

they may respective have in the thing owned in common.

8/11/2019 Case Digests Coownership

3/3

declares: No prescription shall lie in favor

of a co-owner or co-heir so long as he

expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-

ownership.

It is settled that the appropriate recourse of

co-owners in cases where their consent were

not secured in a sale of the entire property as

well as in a sale merely of undivided shares

of some of the co-owners is an action for

PARTITION.

Facts: The petitioners are co-owners of a parcel

of lot, each with a 1/6 share. The private

respondent, Celestino Afable, is a buyer of 2/6

portion of said lot.

This case arose because the petitioners filed

a case for recovery of property and damages.

They filed this action because the respondent is

claiming that he has already acquired the land by

prescription.

Issue: (1) May prescription be invoked by

respondent?(2) Is the action for recovery the proper

action?

Held:

(1)

No. Article 494 provides that (n)o

prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner

or co-heir so long as he expressly or

impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.

Such co-owner may demand at anytime the

partition of the thing owned in common

insofar as his share is concerned, therefore

the action for partition is imprescriptible or

cannot be barred by prescription.

(2)

No. The proper action in cases like this isnot for the nullification of the sale or the

recovery of the thing owned from the third

person who substituted the co-owner or co-

owners who alienated their shares, but the

DIVISION of the common property. It is

settled that the appropriate recourse of co-

owners in cases where their consent were

not secured in a sale of the entire property as

well as in a sale merely of undivided share

of some of the co-owners is an action for

PARTITION.