MANUEL T. DE GUIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Former Sixth Division) and JOSE B.

ABEJO, representedby his Attorney-in-Fact, Hermenegilda Abejo-Rivera, respondents.2003

Oct 8 1st Division G.R. No. 120864

CASE DOCTRINES

Co-owner may file an action against a co-owner; purpose

Any co-owner may file an action under Article 487 not only against a third person, but also
against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership
of the property. In the latter case, however, the only purpose of the action is to obtain
recognition of the co-ownership.
The plaintiff cannotseek exclusion of the defendant from the property because as co-owner
he has a right of possession. The plaintiff cannot recover any material or determinate part of
the property.

Co-ownership; right of enjoyment

The right of enjoyment by each co-owner is limited by a similar right of the other co-owners.
A co-owner cannot devote common property to his exclusive use to the prejudice of the co-
ownership. Hence, if thesubject is a residential house, all the co-owners may live there with
their respective families to the extentpossible. However, if one co-owner alone occupies the
entire house without opposition from the other co-owners, and there is no lease agreement,
the other co-owners cannot demand the payment of rent. Conversely,if there is an
agreement to lease the house, the co-owners can demand rent from the co-owner who
dwells in the house.

Pardell vs. Bartolome [L-4656 November 18, 1912]

Facts: Petitioner Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell and respondent Matilde Ortiz y Felin
Bartolome were the existing heirs of the late Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin. On 1888, Matilde
and co-defendant Gaspar de Bartolome y Escribano took it upon themselves without an
judicial authorization or even extra judicial agreement the administration of the properties
of the late Calixta and Miguel. These properties included a house in Escolta Street, Vigan,
Ilocos Sur; a house in Washington Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a lot in Magallanes Street, Vigan,
Ilocos Sur; parcels of rice land in San Julian and Sta. Lucia; and parcels of land in Candon,
Ilocos Sur.

Vicenta filed an action in court asking that the judgement be rendered in restoring and
returning to them one half of the total value of the fruits and rents, plus losses and damages
from the aforementioned properties. However, respondent Matilde asserted that she never
refused to give the plaintiff her share of the said properties. Vicenta also argued that Matilde
and her husband, Gaspar are obliged to pay rent to the former for their occupation of the
upper story of the house in Escolta Street.

Issue: Whether or not Matilde and Gaspar are obliged to pay rent for their occupation of the
said property

Held: No. The Court ruled that the spouses are not liable to pay rent. Their occupation of the
said property was a mere exercise of their right to use the same as a co-owner. One of the
limitations on a co-owners right of use is that he must use it in such a way so as not to injure
the interest of the other co-owners. In the case at bar, the other party failed to provide proof
that by the occupation of the spouses Bartolome, they prevented Vicenta from utilizing the
same