PROPERTY REVIEWER
Part 6
CO-OWNERSHIP
A. Definition
CO-OWNERSHIPright to common
dominion which two or more persons
have in a spiritual part (or ideal portion)
or a thing which is not materially or
physically divided.
The manifestation of the private
right of ownership, which instead of
being exercised by the owner in an
exclusive manner over the things
subject to it, is exercised by two or
more owners and the undivided thing
or right to which it refers to is one
and the same.
It is not a real right distinct from
ownership but is a mere form or
manifestation of ownership.
Relationship of co-owners and he
may not do an act prejudicial to the
interest of his co-owners.
The legal effect of an agreement
to preserve the property in co-
ownership was to create an express
trust among the heirs as co-owners
of the properties.
Art. 484. There is co-ownership
whenever the ownership of an undivided
thing or right belongs to different
persons. In default of contracts, or of
special provisions, co-ownership shall be
governed by the provisions of this Title.
B. Characteristics of Co-
ownership
(1) plurality of owners, but only one real
right of ownership
(2) the recognition of ideal shares or
aliquot portions, defined but not
physically identified
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
You will only know what portion
belongs to you once there is a
partition
This applies to both immovables
and movables.
Labnotes
Q: Is there an intangible movable?
A: YES. These are property represented
by shares of stock, credits, etc. (ex in
Art 417: 1) obligations and actions
whose objects are movables or
demandable sums and 2) shares of
stock or agricultural, commercial and
industrial entities)
Q: Is there an intangible immovable?
A: YES. These are referred to in #10,
Art 415. Contracts for public works
and servitudes and other real rights
are immovable property. These can
be subject to co-ownership.
(3) Each co-owner has absolute control
over his ideal share, not over specific
portions of the property
Case
Gatchalian v. CIR
Facts
Fifteen individuals made
contributions to purchase a sweepstakes
ticket registered in the name of Jose
Gatchalian and Co. The ticket won third
prize. Gatchalian was then required to
file the corresponding income tax return
covering the prize. They failed to pay.
CIR issued a warrant of distraint and
levy, to avoid embarrassment the 15
paid under protest. This happened a
second time for the balance. The 15
then demanded refund of the money
paid under protest. CFI refused.
Held
If the plaintiff formed a partnership,
they are liable for the payment of
income tax; whereas if there was merely
a community of property, they are
56
 PROPERTY REVIEWER
exempt from such payment. According owned in common by all the co-owners.
the facts, the plaintiffs organized a It cannot be validly claimed that the
partnership of a civil nature because house constructed was built on land
each of them put up money to buy a belonging to her, and 158 cannot apply.
sweepstakes ticket for the sole purpose Necessarily, the claim of conversion of
of dividing equally the prize which they the wifes share from paraphernal to
may win, as they did. Having organized conjugal must be rejected.
and constituted a partnership of a civil
nature, the said entity is then bound to Labnotes
pay the income tax. There is no merit Q: What may be the subject matter of
the plaintiffs contention that the tax co-ownership?
should be proprated among them and A: All things or property (including
paid individually, resulting in their property rights) whether real or
exemption from tax. personal property, whether tangible
or intangible may be the subject
(4) There is a mutual respect among co- matter of co-ownership.
owners in regard to the use,
enjoyment, and preservation of the Q: So if youre a co-owner, what do
property owned in common. you own?
A: You own an undivided spiritual/ideal
Case portion. Before partition, you cannot
Diversified Credit v. Rosado say you own a specific portion.
Therefore, you can validly sell only
Facts your ideal share.
A lot belonged to 13 co-owners
including the Rosado. She signed a Q: The marriage questionin marriage,
deed of sale together with the co- is there co-ownership?
owners in favor of Diversified Credit. A: NO. Co-ownership has its own rules.
However Rosados husband had built a You cant apply absolute partition: to
house on the property without the partition means the dissolution of the
property having been previously regime. You cant partition extra-
partitioned. Diversified then demanded judicially. There has to be court
they vacate or remove the house but approval to make it legal. The best
the spouses refused alleging that it was example of a co-ownership provided
a conjugal house (A.158CC) and that the by law is in case of couple living-in.
building of the house made the 1/13th
share of the wife community property as C. Differences between co-
such making her signature in the deed
of sale void insofar as the 1/13th is ownership and joint
concerned. tenancy
Held Co-ownership Joint Ownership
It is the basic principle in the law of Tenancy in Joint tenancy,
co-ownership that no individual co- Common, Tenancy in
owner can claim title to any definite Ownership in common, Notion of
portion of the land or thing owned in Common, Co- all-for one, one-
common until the partition thereof. dominium for-all
Prior to that time, all that the co-owner Civil law origin Common Law/
has is an ideal, or abstract, quota or Anglo-American
proportionate share in the entire thing origin
57
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

Each co-owner Each joint owner,
owner of his ideal the surviving joint
share owners are
subrogated in his
rights by accretion
(because his right
to ownership is
extinguished by his
deathso if tig 1/3
sila, pag namatay
ang isa, tig1/2
nalang ang natira.
Each co-owner Joint owner must
may dispose of his obtain the consent
undivided share of all the rest to
without the others dispose of his
consent. share.
In case there is a The defense of one
co-owner who is a joint owner can be
minor, minority as used as a defense
a defense against by all joint owners.
prescription is
exclusive to him.
D.Differences between
partnership and co-
ownership
Ordinary Co-ownership
Partnership
With legal/juridical No legal
personality distinct personality distinct
from its members from its members
Created only by created by LAW
agreement or FOCUS [Law,
contract to that Fortuitous Event,
effect Occupancy,
Contract,
Succession]
Purpose is to Purpose is
obtain profit collective
enjoyment and to
maintain the unity
and preservation of
the things owned in
common.
No term set limit As a rule, an
set by law agreement to keep
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
the ownership for
more than 10 years
is void.
Creditors of Creditors of a co-
individual partners owner can attach
cannot attach and his shares in the
sell on execution co-owners and sold
the shares of on execution
partners in the
partnership
Can be Death or incapacity
extinguished by of a co-owner does
the death or not affect existence
incapacity of one of a co-ownership
party
There is mutual A special authority
representation of is needed for such
the parties representation.
A partner cannot A co-owner can
transfer his rights freely dispose of
to a 3rd person his share without
without the need to ask the
consent of the consent of the
others other co-owners.
Distribution of Profits of a co-
profits can be owner depend on
stipulated upon his proportionate
(profit-sharing) share; profit-
sharing is
invariable (Art.
485) not subject to
stipulation
E. Sources of co-
ownership
Labnotes
The main sources of co-ownership
are law and contracts. Succession,
chance, and occupation are deemed
subsumed in law.
(1) Law
(a) Cohabitation
(i) Between man and woman
capacitated to marry each
other.
58

Art. 147. When a man and a woman
who are capacitated to marry each
other, live exclusively with each other as
hysband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or under a void marriage, their
wages and salaries shall be owned by
them in equal shares and the property
acquired by both of them through their
work or industry shall be governed by
the rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the
contrary, properties acquired while they
lived together shall be presumed to
have been obtained by their joint
efforts, work or industry, and shall be
owned by them in equal shares. For
purposes of this article, a party who did
not participate in the acquisition by the
other party of anyproperty shal be
deemed to have contributed jointly in
the acquisition thereof if the formers
efforts consisted in the care and
maintenance of the family and the
household.
Neither party can encumber or
dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her
share in the property acquired by the
other party during cohabitation and
owned in common, without the consent
of the other, until after the termination
of their cohabitation. When only one of
the parties to a void marriage is in good
faith, the share of the party in bad faith
in the co-ownership shall be of their
common children. In case of default of
or waiver by any or all of the common
children or their descendants, each
vacant share shall belong to the
respective surviving descendants. In
the absence of descendants, such share
shall belong to the innocent party. In all
cases, the forfeiture shall take place
upon termination of the cohabitation.
(ii) Between man and woman not
capacitated to marry each
other
Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not
falling under the preceding Article, only
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
the properties acquired by both the
parties through their actual joint
contribution of money, property, or
industry shall be owned by them in
common in proportion to their
respective contributions. In the absence
of proof to the contrary, their
contributions and corresponding shares
are presumed to be equal. The same
rule and presumption shall apply to joint
deposits of money and evidences of
credit.
If one of the parties is validly married
to another, his or her share in the co-
ownership shall accrue to the absolute
community or conjugal partnership
existing in such valid marriage. If the
party who acted in bad faith is not
validly married to another, his or her
shall be forfeited in the manner
provided in the last paragraph of the
preceding Article. The foregoing rules
on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if
both parties are in bad faith.
Case
Mallilin v Castillo
Facts
According to Eustaquio, he and Elvira
cohabited with each other (while their
respective marriages to other partners
were still subsisting). After they
separated, Eustaquio filed petition for
partition of co-ownership, relating to
properties registered solely in the name
of Elvira, but bought through the profits
of a company they both organized.
Elvira denied these allegations of
Eustaquio.
Held
Art. 148 of the Family Code now
provides for a limited co-ownership in
cases where the parties in union are
incapacitated to marry each other.
[P]roperties acquired by them through
their joint contribution of money,
property or industry shall be owned by
them in common in proportion to their
59

contributions which, in the absence of
proof to the contrary, is presumed to be
equal....
Co-ownership is a form of trust and
every co-owner is a trustee for the
other. T he provisions of Art. 1452 and
Art. 1453 of the Civil Code (on implied
trust), then are no longer material since
a trust relation already inheres in a co-
ownership which is governed under Title
III, Book II of the Civil Code.
(b) Absolute community property
Art. 90. The provisions on co-ownership
shall apply to the absolute community of
property between the spouses in all
matters not provided for in this Chapter.
(c) two or more persons purchase
property and by common consent
legal title is taken in the name of
one of them for the benefit of all,
an implied trust is created in
favor of the others in proportion
to each to interest of each. (Art.
1452)
(d) Succession
(i) Intestate successionw here
there are two or more heirs,
the whole estate of the
decedent is, before its
partition, owned in common
by such heirs, subject to the
payment of debt of the
deceased (1078)
(ii) Testateif property is given
to two or more heirs by the
testator
An instance is when a
person A dies intestate and the
properties are left undivided to
several heirs, such heirs are co-
owners of the inheritance. If one
of the heirs dies, his heirs will in
turn be co-owners of the
surviving heirs of A.
Redemption done by one of
the co-owners/heirs will benefit
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
his other co-owner heirs despite
the fact that they did not
contribute to the redemption
money.
(e) Donation
donation to several persons
jointly, it is understood to be in
equal shares
no rights of accretion unless the
donor otherwise provides
but if donation is made to
husband and wife jointly, there
shall be a right of accretion,
unless contrary so provide.
(f) Chance commixtion in good
faith
Art. 472. If by the will of their owners
two things of the same or different kinds
are mixed, or if the mixture occurs by
chance, and in the latter case the things
are not separable without injury, each
owner shall acquire a right proportional
to the part belonging to him, bearing in
mind the value of the things mixed or
confused.
Case
Siari Valley Estates vs Lucasan
(supra)
Facts
SVE sought to recover 200 heads of
cattle that were driven or wandered
from its pasture lands into the adjoining
lands of Lucasan. Lucasan himself
admitted such commixtion although he
says that SVE had already retrieved its
animals. Which cattle belong to the
owner can no longer be determined.
Lower court found for SVE.
Held
Lucasan willfully caused the
commixtion such that under Art. 383
(now 473) he will be held to forfeit his
60

own cattle. No actual evidence exists
that the 823 missing cattle were taken
by Lucasan, but in view of the proof that
his men, on 2 occasions, drove away
more than 30 heads, it may be
presumed that the others must have
also been driven away on subsequent or
prior occasions. One who stole a part of
the money must have also taken the
larger sum lost by the offended party.
Evidence:
1) An average increase of 30% per year
should give Lucasan around 417 heads
in 1951, yet in the same year, after
selling 230 heads, he still had 400.
2) Lucasans original stock was entirely
native, yet when 322 heads were
rounded up for inspection, only 29 were
found to be native.
(g) Hidden treasure co-ownership
between finder and owner
finder who is not the
owner
found the treasure by
chance
not a trespasser
Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to
the owner of the land, building, or other
property on which it is found.
Nevertheless, when the discovery is
made on the property of another, or tof
the state of any of its subdivisions, and
by chance, one-half thereof shall be
allowed to the finder. If the finder is a
trespasser, he shall not be entitled to
any share of the treasure.
If things found be of interest to science
of the arts, the State may acquire them
at their just price, which shall be divided
in conformity with the rule stated.
(h) Easement of a party wall
Art. 658. The easement of party wall
shall be governed by the provisions of
this Title, by the local ordinances and
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
customs insofar as they do conflict with
the same, and by the rules of co-
ownership.
(i) Occupation Harvesting and
fishing
Case
Punsalan et al. v. Boon Liat et al.
Facts
22 fishermen agreed to be the sole
owners of 2 sacks of ambergris found
in the belly of a whale and they agreed
that none could sell without the consent
of the others. Teck who knew of the
existence of the ambergris proposed the
seizure of contraband opium, which was
actually the ambergris. The ambergris
having been seized was loaded and
brought to Zamboanga along with
Ahmad, who was left in charge of the
ambergris. Teck then proceeded to
offer to purchase the ambergris to which
Ahmad refused but was later on
convinced as he was promised
protection from his co-owners. Action
for Replevin was then made (court said
it is in fact an ordinary action for
recovery of title to and possession of the
ambergris)
Held
The sale was not valid. The
ambergris was undivided common
property of the plaintiffs and one of the
defendants. This common ownership
was acquired by occupancy. None of
them had any right to sell said amber,
there being an express agreement
between the co-owners not to sell it
without the consent of all. Sale having
been made without the consent of all
owners, the same shall have no effect
except as to the portion pertaining to
those who made them. The action for
recovery pertaining to each co-owner,
derived from the right of ownership
inherent in the co-ownership can be
61

exercised not only against strangers,
but against the co-owners themselves
when the latter performs with respect to
the thing held in common acts for their
exclusive benefit, or for exclusive
ownership, or which are prejudicial to,
and in violation of the right of the
community.
(j) Condominium law
Sec. 6(c) of RA 4726 unless
otherwise provided, common areas
are held in common by the holders of
the units in equal shares, one for
each unit.
(2) Contract
(a) Two or more persons agree to
create a co-ownership
maximum of ten years (494, 2nd
par), extendable by a new
agreement.
Example: When two parties
agree to purchase a piece of
land, each one paying a part of
the purchase price, on the
condition that they are to divide
the land equally between them.
Parties may also become co-
owners of a particular business
when no partnership having a
distinct juridical existence is
formed between them.
(b) Universal Partnership
(i) Of all present properties
Art. 1778. A partnership of all present
property is that in which the partners
contribute all the property which
actually belongs to them to a common
fund, with the intention of dividing the
same among themselves, as well as all
the profits which they may acquire
therewith.
Art. 1779. In a universal partnership of
all present property, the property which
belongs to each of the partners at the
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
time of the constitution of the
partnership, becomes the common
property of all the partners, as well as
all the profits which they may acquire
herewith.
A stipulation for the common
enjoyment of any other profits may also
be made; but the property which the
partners may acquire subsequently by
inheritance, legacy, or donation cannot
be included in such stipulation, except
the fruits thereof.
(ii) Of profits
Art. 1780. A universal partnership of
profits comprises all that the partners
may acquire by their industry or work
during the existence of the partnership.
Movable or immovable property
which each of the partners may possess
at the time of the celebration of the
contract shall continue to pertain
exclusively to each, only the usufruct
passing to the partnership.
(c) Associations and Societies,
whose articles are kept secret
wherein anyone of the members
may contact in his own name
with third persons (no juridical
personality)
F. Rights of each co-
owner as to the thing
owned in common.
[do not get confused. The rights are
those in BOLD. 1-8. The mnemonic is:
USE the COPs LP!: (1)Use thing; (2)
Share benefits; (3)Ejectment suit;
(4)Compel to contribute; (5)Object to
alteration; (6)Protect against prejudice;
(7)Exercise legal redemption; (8)ask for
partition]
(1) To use the thing according to
its purpose intended (may be
altered by agreement, express or
implied; provided:
62

Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the
thing owned in common, provided he
does so in accordance with the purpose
for which it is intended and in such a
way as not to injure the interest of the
co-ownership or prevent the other co-
owners from using it according to their
rights. The purpose of the co-ownership
may be changed by agreement, express
or implied.
Any express or implied
agreement should govern in
determining what the purpose for
which the property is intended.
Without such agreement, it is
understood that the thing is
intended for that use for which it
is ordinarily adapted to or the use
to which it has been previously
devoted.
Mere tolerance on the part of the
co-owers cannot legalize the
change in the use of a thing
intended by the parties. Mere
tolerance cannot be the basis of
prscription.
(a) without injury or
prejudice to interest of co-
ownership; and
(b) without
preventing the use of other co-
owners (Art. 486)
Acts of the
co-owner cannot devote the property
co-owned to his exclusive use to the
prejudice of the other co-owners.
- If a co-owner occupies a building
agreed upon
by all the co-owned to his
exclusive use to the prejudice of
the other co-owners.
- If a co-owner occupies a building
agreed upon by all the co-owners
to be leased, such co-owner ust
pay rent in favor of all the co-
owners including him
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
Use of one co-owner of the thing
must not be in such a way as to
prevent the other co-owners from
making use of the property
according to their own rights.
- Co-owners may establish rules
regarding their use of the
property co-owned
- The right of enjoyment is limited
by a similar right of others.
- There should be just and
equitable distribution of uses
among all co-owners
Any act against the collective
interest s an act against ownership
and the remedies available to
owners in general may by used by
the co-owners.
Case
Pardell v. Bartolome
Facts
Vicenta and Matilde are sisters who
inherited real properties from their
mother. Ricardo and Vicenta Pardell
claim that Gaspar and Matilde
Bartolome had refused to divide the
properties, acted as administrators w/o
judicial authority and enjoyed properties
through rent, fruits to the detriment of
the Pardells. The sisters assented to
partition of the properties. However it
remains to be determined if Matilde, as
co-owner of the Calle Escolta house was
entitled to reside therein without paying
Vicenta rent.
Held
The record shows no proof that
Matilde occasioned any detriment to the
interests of the community property.
Each co-owner of realty held pro indiviso
exercises his rights over the whole
property may use and enjoy the same
with no other limitation than that he
shall not injure the interests of his
coowners, for the reason that, until a
division be made, the respective part of
each holder can not be determined and
63

every one of the coowners exercises
together with his other coparticipants,
joint ownership over the pro indiviso
property, in addition to his use and
enjoyment of the same.
(2) To share in the benefits in
proportion to his interest,
provided the charges are borne
by each in the same proportion
(Art. 485)
Art. 485. The share of the co-owners,
in the benefits as well as in the charges
shall be proportional to their respective
interests. Any stipulation in a contract
to the contrary shall be void.
The portions belonging to the co-
owners in the co-ownership shall be
presumed equal, unless the contrary is
proved.
A contrary stipulation is void.
Portions are presumed equal unless
contrary is proved. Accretion added to
any portion of land co-owned becomes
part of the property in co-ownership and
should be divided according to each co-
owners proportionate share.
(3) Any one of the co-owner may
bring an action in ejectment
(Art. 487)
Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may
bring an action in ejectment.
Covers all kinds of actions for
recovery of possession (forcible
entry, unlawful detainer, accion
publiciana, and acion reivindicatoria)
A co-owner ma bring such action
without necessity of bringin all the
other co-owners as co-plaintiffs
because the suit is deemed to be for
the benefit of all.
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
Action will not prosper if the
action is for the benefit of himself
only and not for the co-ownership.
When the action is brought by
one co-owner for the benefit of all, a
favorable decision will benefit whem
but an adverse decision will not
affect them if they are not parties in
the case or they did not give their
consent to the action.
If the defendant believes he will
win the case, he should implead the
other co-owners so that if he wins,
the other co-owners wil also be
barred from contesting his
possession or ownership.
This article also contemplates a
case brought by a co-owner against
another co-owner against another
co-owner who takes exclusive
possession and asserts ownership in
himself alone. The effect of the
action will be to obtain recognition of
the co-ownership and the defendant
will not be evicted from the whole
property.
(4) To compel other co-owner to
contribute to expenses for
preservation of the thing or right
owned in common and to taxes
(Art. 488)
Art. 488. 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 and to the taxes.
Any one of the latter may exempt
himself from this obligation by
renouncing so much of his undivided
interest as may be equivalent to his
share of the expenses and taxes. No
such waiver shall be made if it is
prejudicial to the co-ownership.
Co-owners option not to
contribute by waiving his undivided
interest equal to amount of
64
 PROPERTY REVIEWER
contribution (except if waiver is - Renunciation must be express
prejudicial to co-ownership) and unequivocal.
JBL Reyes waiver requires - Renunciation must refer to the
consent of other co-owners: such as portion of the value of the
dacion en pago. interest of the debtor equivalent
to his share in the necessary
Necessary expenses expenses.
taxes and expenses for the - The basis for the computation
preservation of the thing which is not must be the value of interest in
made would endanger the existence the property at the time of
of the thing or reduce its value or renunciation.
productivity
does not imply any improvement Comparison between the Old and New
or increase. Civil Code Provisions on Renunciation
Does not include those that
merely produce benefits for the OLD (Art. 389) NEW (ART. 488)
owner, or merely for luxury, Renunciatio Tantamount to
embellishment or pleasure. n of share cessation of
Refers to rights or dacion
Useful expenses obligation to en pago
they increase the income of the contribute in Refers to
thing owned in common for the the future obligation to
benefit of all the co-owners. Renunciatio contribute in
not covered as one of them n of whole expenses
cannot incur such expenses without share already paid.
the consent of the others and then Unilateral Renunciation of
charge them to pay their shares and absolute as the part of the
later. consent of the undivided interst
The community is not for other co-owners which is
purposes of profit but only for the not needed equivalent to his
preservation of the sources of Extremely share in the
income. unjust when the necessary
New sources of income cannot be share is too expenses.
created at the expense of the co- small an Consent of the
owners without their consent. amount as to other co-owners
the value of the needed
(a) Remedy against defaulting co- interst in the (according to
owneraction to compel him to property Tolentino, as the
contribute such share. He cannot (According to code is silent on
be compelled to renounce his Code this) because
share as such option is at his own Commission) they would have
discretion. to shoulder the
expenses
Co-owner has option not to themselves if he
contribute by waiving his undivided would not
interst equal to amount of contribute.
contribution (unless waiver is Would always
prejudicial to co-ownership) result into
- His failure to pay his share does prejudicial
not amount to renunciation. renunciation
65
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

because there is
a preexisting
debt which
should be paid
by the other co-
owners to a third
person.
The provision is silent in case the
one who paid for the necessary
expenses is a third person. It
appears that this third person,
despite the consent of the other co-
owners to the renunciation, can still
sue the renouncing co-owner if his
consent was not obtained in the
renunciation.
What are the requisites before
repairs for preservation,
embellishment, or improvements
may be made?
Art. 489. Repairs for preservation may
be made at the will of one of the co-
owners, but he must, if practicable, first
notify his co-owners of the necessity for
such repairs. Expenses to improve or
embellish the thing shall be decided
upon by a majority as determined in
Article 492.
A co-owner alone can advance
expenses for preservation of the
property even without prior consent
of others. He is entitled to be
reimbursed for the amount he spent
for necessary expenses.
Will of one of the co-owners is
sufficient authority to undertake
expenses for preservation. He can
proceed with the repairs for
preservation despite opposition of
the others.
Consent of majority required only
in case where the expenses are for
the improvement or embellishment
of the thing or for administration and
better enjoyment of the thing.
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
Consent of all is needed only in
acts of ownership.
Notice before undertaking repairs
is required only when it is
practicable.
Effect of failure to notify co-
owners:
(a) Failure to give notice even
if it was practicavle to do so does
not deprive the co-owner his right
to be reimbursed the
proportionate share of the other
in the expenses.
(b) The effect of such
omission is that he is given the
burden of proving the necessity
of such repairs and the
reasonableness of the expense.
(c) He will not be fully
reimbursed if the others can
prove that had he notified them,
they could have hired the
services of another contractor
who would charge less than the
people whome he contracted or
that they know of a store that
sells the needed material at a
cheaper price. The difference will
be borne by him.
(5) To oppose any act or alteration;
remedy of other co-owner in case of
alteration.
Art. 491. None of the co-owners shall,
without the consent of the others, make
alterations in the thing owned in
common, even though benefits for all
would result therefrom. However, if the
withholding of the consent by one or
more of the co-owners is clearly
prejudicial to the common interest, the
courts may afford adequate relief.
Alteration
- The act by virtue of which
a co-owner
66
 PROPERTY REVIEWER
- changes the thing from the
common, the resolutions of the majority
state in which the others believe
of the co-owners shall be binding.
it should remain or
There shall be no majority unless the
- Withdraws it form the use to
reolution is approved by the co-owners
which they are desired to be
who represent the controlling interest in
intended in opposition to the
the object of the co-ownership.
common agreement, if there is
Should there be no majority, or
any, or in absence of a common
should the resolution of the majority be
agreement, to the tacit
seriously prejudicial to those interested
agreement of all the co-owners,
in the property owned in common, the
and violating their will
court, at the instance of an interested
party, shall order such measures as it
Acts of alteration requires the may deem proper, including the
consent of ALL the co-owners if it appointment of an administrator.
changes the essence or nature of the Whenever a part of the thing belongs
thing (present article refers to this) exclusively to one of the co-owners, and
because it is an act of ownership. the remainder is owned in common, the
Consent may be express or tacit preceding provision shall apply only to
(such as when a co-owner has the part owned in common.
knowledge of the act of alteration
but does not object)
Tacit consent does not include Administration and better
the liability to answer for any part of enjoyment acts or decisions for the
the expenses incurred in the common benefit of all and not for the
alteration even if such is a useful benefit of only one or some of them.
expense. Characteristics:
Alteration without consent is (a) they refer to the enjoyment and
illegal and the one who did the preservation of the thing
alteration is punished by making him (b) they have transitory effects
lose what he spent in case he may
be made to demolish the work he Comparison between Art.
has done plus damages or 491 and Art. 492:
indemnity. Acts of Acts of
Consent of all is needed in order Alteration/Acts Administration
to I pose a voluntary easement on of Ownership
the property they co-own. Relates to Also for the
Acts of alteration that does not the use, better
change the essence or nature of the substance or enjoyment of the
thing requires only the agreement of form of the property
the majority because it is merely an thing Effects are of
act of administration. Have a transitory
- but if withholding of consent by more character
any one of the co-owners is permanent Consent of the
clearly prejudicial to the common result financial majority
interst, courts may afford Consent of will be binding
adequate relief (Art. 491, CC) all is necessary Does not give
Contrary to rise to a real
Art. 492. For the administration and the co- right over the
better enjoyment of the thing owned in ownership thing owned in
agreement common.
67
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

Effects of acts of alteration and
remedies of non-consenting co-
owner :
(a) Co-owner who made alterations
may lose whaetever he has spent
as he will not be reimbursed
(b) He may be ordered to demolish
or remove the alteration at his
expense
(c) He will be liable for damages and
other losses
(d) Co-ownership will benefit from
the alteration if other co-owners
decide to contribute to the
expenses by reimbursing him
(ratification)
(e) If a house is built in a common
lot, the co-owners are entitled to
the proportionate share of the
rent.
Q: Can a mere majority of the co-
owners lease real property for any
length of time?
A: Old Civil Code rule:
Lease for not more than 6 years
is just an act of administration.
Lease for more than 6 years is an
act of ownership.
New Civil Code rule:
Lease becomes an act of
ownership and ceases to be an
act of administration if:
(1) It is recorded in the
Registry o Property; and
(2) It is for more than 1 year
Art. 1647. If a lease is to be recorded in
the Registry of Property, the following
persons cannot constitute the same
without proper authority: the husband
with respect to the wifes paraphernal
real estate, the father or guardian as to
the property of the minor or ward, and
the manager without special power.
Registration makes the lease
binding on third persons (Art. 1648,
NCC) Special powers is the criterion
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
for determining whether the act is
legally one of strict ownership.
Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney
are necessary in the following cases: x x
x
(8) To lease any real property to
another person for more than one year.
(6) To protect against acts of
majority which are prejudicial to
minority (Art. 492, Par. 3)
(a) Who may manage
property?
The co-owners themselves.
Court cannot appoint an
administrator to manage a
property co-owned when the co-
owners want to handle the
management. In this
management, the majority of the
of interest control and their
decisions are binding upon the
minority. Majority may only
proceed to act without notice to
the minority if the circumstances
warrant urgency.
(b) An administrator
who may or may not be a co-
owner delegated by the co-
owners
An administrator cannot,
without the unanimous consent of
all the co-owners, compromise
on, donate, cede, alienate,
mortgage, or encumber in any
manner the common property.
(Ex. Constitute an easement)
(c) What is the
majority?
The majority is not the
majority in number but rather
pertains to the majority in interst
or the financial majority. The
majority required should be
construed to be an absolute
majority or more than one-half of
the value of the thing.
68

(d) What are acts seriously
prejudicial?
So serious
and affects the interest of the
co-owners in the community
Such that will
cause injuries enough to
justify the intervention of the
court
Judicial
intervention is improper for
merely slight causes, or when
one co-owner suffers an injury
because of circumstances
peculiar to himself alone.
(e) Examples of Acts Prejudicial to
the Minority:
(1) When the resolution calls for a
substantial change or
alteration of the common
property
or of the use to which it
has been dedicated by
agreement or by its nature.
(2) When the resolution
goes beyond the limits of
mere administration, or
invades the proprietary
rights of the co-owners, in
violation of Art. 491
(prohibiting against acts of
alteration)
(3) When the majority leases,
loans, or other contracts
without security, exposing the
thing to serious danger to the
prejudice of the other co-
owners.
(4) When the majority refuse
to dismiss an administrator
who is guilty of fraud or
negligence in his
management, or does not
have the respectability,
aptitude, and solvency
required of persons holding
such position.
(5) When resolution, if carried
out, would cause serious
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
injury to the thing itself, such
as an agreement not to
borrow money under
reasonable terms when it is
necessary for urgent repairs
for preservation, or for the
payment of taxes.
(f) Remedies of the minority.
If the acts of the majority
prejudice the minority, the latter
may ask for injunction or at
worse, a partition.
Cases
Lavadia v Cosme
Facts
6 pious women (A, B, C, D, E, and F)
bought jewelry for the Image of Our
Lady of Guadalupe. D had initial
custody, then E, then the various
descendants of E, and finally C. When C
wanted to make the Bishop of Lipa
custodian, the plaintiffs (F and the heirs
of A, B, and C) objected and designated
F as the custodian thereof. TC:
inasmuch as the plaintiffs are the
owners of 4/6 parts pro indiviso of the
jewels, and defendants (heirs of D and
E), only 2/6, they have the right to
determine who should be entrusted with
the custody. F was awarded custody.
Held
Plaintiffs have such right. With the
amount of individual contribution
undetermined, the law presumes that all
of them contributed proportionately.
Having owned 4/6 shares as opposed to
defendants 2/6, plaintiffs have the right
to choose who must have custody.
Simple majority rule.
Melencio vs. Dy Tiao Lay
Facts
After the death of the owner of the
land in question, his widow and three of
his children executed a contract of lease
69

of the land in favor of the predecessor in
interest of Dy Tiao Lay. The term of the
lease was for 20 years, extendible for a
like period at the option of the lessee. It
was further stipulated that at the
termination of the original period of
lease or its extension, the lessors might
purchase all the buildings on the land at
a price to be fixed by experts appointed
by the parties, but if the lessors should
fail to take a advantage of that privilege,
the lease would continue for another
and further 20 years.
The lease contract was not signed by
two of the co-heirs. In 1920, the heirs
made an extrajudicial partition of the
inheritance, and among others things,
the land here in question fell to the
share of plaintiffs herein.
The coheirs that did not sign the
lease contract brought this action to
recover possession of the land leased to
Dy Tiao Lay. They insisted that they had
never any knowledge of the existence of
such a contract of lease and that the
contract was executed without their
consent.
Held
Considering that, although as a rule
the contract of lease constitutes an act
of management, as this court has
several times held, cases may yet arise,
either owing to the nature of the subject
matter, or to the period of duration,
which may render it imperative to
record the contract in the registry of
property, in pursuance of the Mortgage
Law, where the contract of lease may
give rise to a real right in favor of the
lessee, and it would then constitute such
a sundering of the ownership as
transcends mere management; in such
cases it must of necessity be recognized
that the part owners representing the
greater portion of the property held in
common have no power to lease said
property for a longer period than six
years without the consent of all the
coowners, whose propriety rights,
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
expressly recognized by the law, would
by contracts of long duration be
restricted or annulled; and as under
article 1548 of the Civil Code such
contracts cannot be entered into by the
husband with respect to his wife's
property, by the parent or guardian with
respect to that of the child or ward, and
by the manager in default of special
power, since the contract of lease only
produces personal obligations, and
cannot without the consent of all
persons interested or express authority
from the owner, be extended to include
stipulations which may alter its
character, changing it into a contract of
partial alienation of the property leased.
Tolentino: The case was decided
under the old civil code-if the lease of
immovable property is not for more than
6 years, it constitutes an act of
administration and the resolution of the
majority of co-owners is sufficient.; while
if it is for more than years it is an act of
strict ownership and all the co-owners
must consent. In the present code-
the special power of attorney is required
for leases of real property by an
administrator in the following cases:
1)the lease cease to be an act of
administration when it is to be recorded
in the Registry of Property; 2) when the
lease for any real property to another
person is for more than one year.
Tuason v Tuason
Facts
Angela, Nieves and Antonio Tuason
coowned a parcel of land. They entered
into a memorandum of agreement that
no coowner shall sell, alienate or
dispose of his ownership without fist
giving preference to the other coowners.
Angela asked that the contract be
rescinded and the property be
partitioned stating that the MoA is null
and void.
Held
70

The MoA far from violating the legal
provision that forbids a co-owner from
being obliged to remain a party to the
community, precisely has for its purpose
and object the dissolution of the co-
ownership and of the community by
selling the parcel held in common and
dividing the proceeds of the sale among
the co-owners. The obligation imposed
in the MoA to preserve the co-ownership
until all lots shall have been sold is a
mere incident to the main object of
dissolving the co-ownership. By virtue
of the MoA the parties practically
entered into a contract of partnership at
best and most expedient means of
eventually dissolving the property.
(7) To exercise legal redemption
(Art. 1620, 1623)
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
of any of them, are sold to a third
person. If the price of the alienation is
grossly excessive, the redemptioner
shall pay only a reasonable one.
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 respectively have in the
thing owned in common.
Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-
emption or redemption shall not be
exercised except within thirty days from
the notice in writing by the prospective
vendor, or by the vendor, as the case
may be. The deed of sale shall not be
recorded in the Registry of Property,
unless accompanied by an affidavit of
the vendor that he has given written
notice thereof to all possible
redemptioners.
The right of redemption of co-
owners excludes that of adjoining
owners.
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
The period of redemption starts
to run from the WRITTEN notification.
However, there is an exceptional
case- when there is actual
knowledge (Alonzo v. IAC)
Q: Can redemption money be made
equal or less than what was paid by
third persons?
A: Yes, it can be lower if the price of
sale is grossly excessive, such as
when the co-owner didnt want other
co-owners to redeem. However,
generally it is of the equal amount.
Cases
Mariano v CA
Facts
Francisco left his wife, Antonia and
daughters Amparo and Grace a lot
which was foreclosed. Amparo
redeemed the property and a year later
Antonia executed a deed of assignment
of right of redemption to Amparo who in
turn sold the entire property to Mariano.
When Grace learned fo this she filed a
complaint for recovery of possession of
the land.
Held
Redemption of the property by a co-
owner does not vest in him sole
ownership over said property but will
inure to the benefit of all co-owners.
Redemption is not a mode of
termination of relationship. It would
have been otherwise had Amparo
purchased the property after the
redemption period had lapsed and after
the mortgage bank had consolidation its
title, in which case there would not
longer be any co-ownership to speak of.
Reyes vs. Judge Concepcion
Facts
Marina Zaballero Reyes, Augusto
Zaballero, Socorro Zaballero Francisco.
Socorro Marquez Vda. De Zaballero,
71

Eugenia Z. Luna, Elena Fronda Zaballero
and Leonardo M. Zaballero are the pro-
indiviso co-owners of the eight parcels
of registered land located in the
province of Cavite, with an aggregate
area of about 96 hectares.
Marina Zaballero Reyes, Augusto
Zaballero, Socorro Zaballero Francisco
received a written notice from
defendants Socorro Marquez Vda. De
Zaballero, Eugenia Z. Luna, Leonardo M.
Zaballero and Elena Fronda Zaballero
that the VOLCANO SECURITIES TRADERS
AND AGRI-BUSINESS CORPORATION had
offered to buy the latter's share in the
properties listed in the complaint. And
the petitioners were requested to
exercise their pre-emptive right to
purchase defendants' and intervenor's
shares; or to agree to a physical
partition of the properties; or to sell
their shares, jointly with the defendants
and the intervenor, to the VOLCANO
SECURITIES TRADERS AND AGRI-
BUSINESS CORPORATION or VOLCANO
LAKEVIEW RESORTS, INC.
Held
In this jurisdiction, the legal
provisions on co-ownership do not grant
to any of the owners of a property held
in common a pre-emptive right to
purchase the pro-indiviso shares of his
co-owners. Article 1620 contemplates of
a situation where a co-owner has
alienated his pro-indiviso shares to a
stranger. By the very nature of the right
of "legal redemption", a co-owner's light
to redeem is invoked only after the
shares of the other co-owners are sold
to a third party or stranger to the co-
ownership. But in the case at bar, at the
time petitioners filed their complaint for
injunction and damages against private
respondents, no sale of the latter's pro-
indiviso shares to a third party had yet
been made. Thus, Article 1620 of the
New Civil Code finds no application to
the case at bar.
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
There is likewise no merit to
petitioners' contention that private
respondents had acknowledged the pre-
emptive right of petitioners to purchase
their shares at a "reasonable price".
Although it appears that private
respondents had agreed to sell their
pro-indiviso shares to petitioners, the
offer was made at a fixed rate of P12.50
per square meter. It cannot be said that
private respondents had agreed, without
qualification, to sell their shares to
petitioners. Hence, petitioners cannot
insist on a right to purchase the shares
at a price lower than the selling price of
private respondents.
Neither do petitioners have the legal
right to enjoin private respondents from
alienating their pro-indiviso shares to a
third party. The law does not prohibit a
co-owner from selling, alienating or
mortgaging his ideal share in the
property held in common. The law
merely provides that the alienation or
mortgage shall be limited only to the
portion of the property which may be
allotted to him upon termination of the
co-ownership and, as earlier discussed,
that the remaining co-owners have the
right to redeem, within a specified
period, the shares which may have been
sold to the third party. [Articles 1620
and 1623]
Additional Cases
Halili v. CA
Facts
Guzman, an American citizen, died
and left some real properties to his
widow and son (both American citizens).
The widow then assigned all his rights to
her son over her share in the 6 parcels
of land left by the husband. The son
then sold them to Cataniag, a Filipino
citizen. Halili, the owner of the adjoining
lot questioned the constitutionality of
the transfers of property and claimed
ownership to the land based on right of
72

legal redemption under Art. 1621. TC
dismissed the complaint. CA affirmed
Held
Halili cannot exercise legal
redemption over the property. The
subject land is urban in character based
on the clear findings of both the TC and
CA. Halili has no right to invoke legal
redemption under Art 1621 since such
article presupposes that the land sought
to be redeemed is rural. Under Art.
1621, both landsthat sought to be
redeemed and the adjacent lot
belonging to the person exercising the
right of redemptionmust be rural. If
one or both are urban, the right cannot
be invoked.
Francisco v Boiser
Facts
Francisco and three of her sisters are
co-owners of land on which a
commercial building stands. They sold
1/5 of their undivided share to their
mother, thus making their mother a co-
owner. In 1986, without the knowledge
of Francisco & co., the mother sold her
share to Boiser. On 5 Aug 1992,
Francisco received summons, with a
copy of the complaint filed by Boiser,
demanding her share in the rentals
collected by Francisco from the
buildings tenants. Francisco then
informed her that she was exercising
her right of redemption as co-owner.
The lower courts ruled that the 30-day
period for redemption has lapsed
because as early as 30 May 1992,
Francisco knew about the sale because,
on that date, Boiser wrote Francisco a
letter informing the latter about the
sale, demanding the rentals, with a copy
of the Deed of Sale between Franciscos
mother and Boiser.
Held
The letter of 30 May 1992 cannot be
considered sufficient as compliance with
the notice requirement of Art. 1623. Art.
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
1623 requires that the written
notification should come from the
vendor or prospective vendor, not from
any other person. The vendor of an
undivided interest is in the best position
to know who his co-owners are, who
must be notified of the sale. It is the
notification from the seller, which can
remove all doubts as to the fact of the
sale, its perfection, and its validity, for in
a contract of sale, the seller is in the
best position to confirm whether
consent to the essential obligation of
selling the property and transferring
ownership thereof to the vendee has
been given. Thus, sufficient compliance
with Art. 1623 means that Franciscos
mother is the one informing her of the
sale, not Boiser. [NOTE: As the subject
sale has already been established
before the courts, it is no longer
required that notice be given by the
mother before Francisco can exercise
her right. The receipt by Francisco of
summons on 5 Aug 1992 constitutes
actual knowledge on the basis of which
Francisco may now exercise her right of
redemption within 30 days from finality
of this decision.]
Verdad v CA
Angel Macaria Canuto
Burdeos Atega Rosales
David
Ramon F
JJ
E A
R
Socorro
(heirs)
Verdad
Facts
Macaria married Canuto after Angels
death. After Macaria died intestate,
David died intestate. In 1982, the heirs
of Ramon sold to Verdad their interest
on the disputed lot. On 30 Mar 1987,
Socorro discovered the sale while she
was on the City Treasurers Office. The
73

following day, she sought to redeem the
property. The trial court ruled that
Socorros right to redeem the property
had already lapsed, but CA reversed. On
appeal to the SC, Verdad also contends
that Socorro cannot redeem the
property, not being a co-heir of Macaria.
Held
While Socorro is not an intestate heir
of her parents-in-law, her right to the
property is not because she rightfully
can claim heirship in Macarias estate
but that she is a legal heir of her
husband, David Rosales, whose
undivided interest over the property
inherited from Macaria, passed on to his
widow. The right of redemption was also
timely exercised. No written notice of
the sale was given by the Burdeos heirs
(vendors) to the co-owners required
under Art. 1623. The 30-day period of
redemption had yet to commence when
Socorro sought to exercise the right of
redemption on 31 Mar 1987, or when
the case was initiated before the trial
court. The written notice of sale is
mandatory. Notwithstanding actual
knowledge of a co-owner, the latter is
still entitled to a written notice from the
selling co-owner in order to remove all
uncertainties about the sale, its terms
and conditions, as well as its efficacy
and status.
Pilapil v CA
Facts
A parcel of land was co-owned by 4
siblings. Two of them sold their
undivided share to the Pilapils.
Subsequently, however, the two vendors
sold the same ideal share to their
relatives (one of the vendees a co-
owner, the other one is not).
Held
The validity of a title depends on the
buyers knowledge, actual or
constructive, of a prior sale. While there
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
is no direct proof that Carmen & Maxima
(second vendees) actually knew of the
sale to the Pilapils (first vendees), they
are deemed to have constructive
knowledge thereof by virtue of their
relationship to both Agaton & Vitaliana
(vendors).
A third person, within the meaning of
Art. 1620 of the Civil Code (on the right
of legal redemption of a co-owner) is
anyone who is not a co-owner.
Art. 1623, requiring the vendor of the
property to give a written notice of sale
to the other co-owners, had been
rendered inutile by the fact that the
Pilapil spouses took possession of the
property immediately after the
execution of the deed of sale in their
favor and continue to possess the same.
Since the fact of possession by the
Pilapil spouses had not been questioned
by any of the co-owners, the latter may
be deemed to have knowledge of the
sale.
Labnotes
Q: In Mariano v CA, if Amparo wanted
to run it all by herself, what should
she do?
A: Definitely, she cannot participate
in the foreclosure sale as buyer. She
has two remedies:
(1) She can buy back
from the bank after one year. By
then, the bank would have
consolidated ownership.
(2) She can ask other
co-owners to waive their right of
redemption or pay for it, but it. If
they choose to waive it, it is a
donation.
Other co-owners will be co-
owners again subject to
contribution. If they cant
contribute, they are no longer
considered co-owners.
Q: What is the difference of legal
redemption in Art. 1620 from that in
1088
74

A: In Mariano v. CA, the Supreme Court
stated that the difference lies in the
subject matter of the undivided
interest. In Art. 1620, the subject
matter is the determinate and
particular object whereas in Art.
1088, it is the undivided hereditary
right to the universality or set of
properties to be inherited.
Q: In Reyes v. Judge Concepcion, if
they were notified 30 days before
the sale but didnt pre-empt, can
they redeem later on, do you still
apply the second paragraph?
A: Sir said that right is alternative, if
they didnt give advance notice, then
redemption comes in. If they were
given notice, there is no more
redemption available. The option
was lost.
When you redeem, there is no
need for consignation. It is not really
an obligation. All you need is a
tender of payment.
(8) To
ask for partition (Art. 494)
PROPERTY REVIEWER
A co-owner can always ask for a
partition. There is no prescriptive
period.
Exceptions:
(i) when there is a stipulation
against it (not beyond 10 years)
(ii) when condition of indivision is
imposed by transferor (donor or
testator) not exceed 20 years
(Art. 494)
(iii) when legal nature of community
prevents partition (e.g. party
wall)
(iv)when partition is generally
prohibited by law
(v) when partition would render the
thing unserviceable, or the thing
in common is essentially
indivisible
- no physical partition but thing
maybe sold and co-owners
shall divide the proceeds
(495, 498)
(vi)acquisitive prescription has set in
facor of a stranger to co-
ownership or in favor of co-
owner.

Labnotes
Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged
Q: All agree, can partition before the
to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-
period lapses be shortened?
owner may demand at any time the
A: YES, it is considered a novation by
partition of the thing owned in common,
agreement, and a co-ownership is
insofar as his share is concerned.
created by agreement.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep
the thing undivided for a certain period
Cases
of time, not exceeding ten years, shall
Ramirez v. Ramirez
be valid. This term may be extended by
a new agreement.
Facts
A donor or testator may prohibit
Ramirez brought an action for
partition for a period which shall not
partition of a parcel of land. Some
exceed twenty years.
defendants agreed while others
Neither shall there be any partition
objected on the theory that partition
when it is prohibited by law.
would work great harm and pre-judice to
No prescription shall run in favor of a
the co-owners. Matter was referred to a
co-owner or co-heir against his co-
Commission. The CFI ruled for partition
owners or co-heirs so long as he
according to the plan submitted by
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-
petitioners.
ownership.

75
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

Held
No evidence has been introduced, or
sought to be introduced, in support of
the allegation that a physical division of
the property will cause inestimable
damage to the interest of the co-
owners. Moreover, the same is
predicated upon the assumption that a
real estate suitable for commercial
purposes such as the one herein
sought to be partitioned is likely to
suffer a proportionately great diminution
in value when its area becomes too
small.
Aguilar v. CA
Facts
Virgilio and Senen are brso. They
bought a house in Paranaque for their
father. V's share was 2/3 and Senen 1/3.
but by a subsequent memo, they agreed
to equal ownership but S is to assume
remaining mortgage obligation with SSS.
V was disqualified from obtaining loan
from SSS, the deed of sale and title was
in S name. After the father's death V
demanded S vacate the house, the
house be sold and the proceeds be
divided 2/3 for him and 1/3 for S, as well
as monthly rentals for S' use of the
house. S wants the equal division of
proceeds and says being a co-owner, he
was entittled to use and enjoyment
thereof.
Held
Either one may demand the sale of
the house and lot at any time and the
other cannot object to such demand;
thereafter the proceeds of the sale shall
be divided equally according to their
respective interests. S, being a co-
owner, has the right use the house and
lot without paying any compensation to
petitioner, as he may use the property
owned in common as long as it is in
accordance with the purpose for which it
is intended and in a manner not
injurious to the interest of the co-
owners.
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
G.Implications of co-
owners right over his
ideal share.
No individual or co-owner can
claim title to any definite part or
portion of the thing co-owned. All
the co-owner has is an ideal abstract,
quota or proportionate share in the
entire land or thing. All that he can
sell or freely dispose is his undivided
interest but he cannot sell or
alienate a concrete, specific or
definite part of the thing owned in
common because his right over the
thing is represented by a quota or
ideal portion without any physical
adjudication.
Any co-owner by himself
extinguish any real right existing on
the thing, such as easements or
martgages because in everything
that is for the benefit of the
community, each co-owner
represents all the others.
(1) Co-owner has the right
(a) To share in the fruits and benefits
(b) To alienate, mortgage, or
encumber and dispose off his
ideal share subject to other co-
owner right of legal redemption.
(c) To substitute another person in
the enjoyment of the thing. (Art.
493)
(d) To renounce part of his interest
to reimburse necessary expenses
incurred by another co-owner
(Art. 488)
(2) Effect of transaction by each co-
owner
(a) Limited to his share in the
partition
(b) Transferree does not acquire any
specific portion of the whole
property until partition
76

(c) Creditors of co-owners may
intervene in the partition to
attack the same if prejudicial (Art.
499), except that creditors
cannot ask for rescission even if
not notified in the absence of
fraud (Art. 497) ask for recission
even if notified.
Cases
Carvajal v CA
Facts
Spouses Espique had 5 heirsMaria,
Evairsto, Estefanio, and Tropinia.
Curvajal is currently occupying the 2/5
of the whole lot. He purchased of his
lot from Estefanio and the southern part
was leased to him by Tropinia. The
northern is being claimed by spouses
Camarillo after they bought it from
Evaristo. Spouses sought recovery of
the land. CFI ordered Carvajal to
surrender the property because unless
there is a partition of the estate of the
deceased, co-heir cannot validly claim
title to a specific portion of the estate.
Held
Unless the partition is effected, each
heir cannot claim ownership over the
definite portion and cannot dispose.
Upon death of a person, each of his
heirs becomes the undivided owner of
the whole estate. Each co-owner shall
have full ownership of his part even
fruits and benefits. He may alienate,
assign, or mortgage it. Effect of
alienation with respect to other co-
owners shall be limited to the portion
allotted him during partition. He cannot
alienate a specific part of the thing in
common to the exclusion of other co-
owners because his right over the thing
is represented by an ideal protion. Co-
owner cannot adjudicate to himself a
definite portion owned in common until
partition by agreement or by judicial
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
decree. Before partition, co-heir can
only sell his successional rights.
Pamplona v Moreto
Facts
6 years after the death of his wife
and without the consent of the heirs of
the wife plus even before the liquidation
of the conjugal partnership, Flaviano
Moreto sold 781 sq. m. of conjugal lot to
the Pamplona spouses. The conjugal
property consists of 3 adjacent lots
totaling 2,346 sq. m. After Flaviano
pointed ot the sold lot, the Pamplonas
built their house and piggery on it. After
the death of Flaviano, the heirs, insisting
on their right to the property, demanded
that the Pamplonas vacate the land. TC
and CA favored the heirs.
Held
Flaviano had the perfect right to sell
the lot. After the wifes death, he
became entitled to of the entire
property, with only belonging to the
heirs. They hold the property as co-
owners. Since his share amounts to
1,173 sq. m., the area he sold (781 sq.
m.) is within the limits o his share.
There was partial partition of the
property when Flaviano pointed to the
lot he sold to the Pamplonas.
Castro v Atienza
Facts
On Jan 24, 1956, brothers Tomas and
Arsenio de Castro, Sr. leased to Gregorio
Atienza a 26-hectare fishpond co-owned
by them in Polo, Bulacan for 5 years. In
Nov 1956, Atienza and Arsenio, Sr.
agreed to set aside and annul the
contract of lease through a written
agreement signed by both of them. The
reason was Arsenio, Sr. wanted to lease
the fishpond to another person.
However, the widow of Tomas, Feliza
Cruz Vda. de Castro, refused to sign
such agreement. There was an
77

agreement that the rent of P2,500 paid
by Atienza will be returned to him on
Dec 30, 1956, but due to the lack of
signature, he was still not paid. He
instituted an action in the CFI. The
latter ordered the payment of P2,500.
CA affirmed.
Held
The consent of the widow of Tomas
is not essential to the validity of the
agreement of the cancellation of the
lease between Arsenio and Atienza
(despite the absence of express
provision that the widows signature is a
condition for validity). Art 493 of the
NCC allows the alienation of the co-
owner of his part in the co-ownership.
The effect of such alienation or
mortgage shall be limited to the portion
which may be allotted to him in the
division upon the termination of the co-
ownership
When Arsenio and Tomas entered
into a contract of lease with Atienza,
each of them leased their respective
undivided interest owned in common.
In case only the other leased his
share to Atienza, there would result a
partnership between the lessee Atienza
and the owner of the other undivided
share who did not lease. In short, a co-
owner can enter into a contract of lease
insofar as to his interest. Therefore, he
can also cancel such lease without the
consent from the other co-owner. It is
clear that Felisas signature is not
needed to cancel the lease of Arsenios
own undivided share, pursuant to his
right granted by Art 493.
Estoque v Pajimula
Facts
Lot No. 802 of the Cadastral survey
of Rosario was originally owned by the
late spouses, Rosendo Perez and
Fortunata Bernal, who were survived by
her children, namely, Crispina Perez,
Lorenzo Perez and Ricardo Perez.
Crispina Perez Vda. de Aquitania
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
sold her right and participation in Lot
No. 802 consisting of 1/3 portion with an
area of 640 square meters to Leonora
Estoque. The next day, Crispinas co-
heirs executed a deed of extrajudicial
settlement wherein they assigned all
their right, interest and participation in
Lot No. 802 to Crispina Perez.
Crispina Perez and her children sold
to Elena Pajimula, the remaining 2/3
western portion of Lot No. 802 with an
area of 958 square meters.
Held
Estoque became the actual owner of
the southeastern third of lot 802 on
October 29, 1951. Wherefore, she never
acquired an undivided interest in lot
802. And when eight years later Crispina
Perez sold to the appellees Pajimula the
western two-thirds of the same lot,
appellant did not acquire a right to
redeem the property thus sold, since
their respective portions were distinct
and separate and they never became
co-owners.
Diversified Credit v. Rosado (supra)
Facts
A lot belonged to 13 co-owners
including the Rosado. She signed a
deed of sale together with the co-
owners in favor of Diversified Credit.
However Rosados husband had built a
house on the property without the
property having been previously
partitioned. Diversified then demanded
they vacate or remove the house but
the sps refused alleging that it was a
conjugal house (A.158CC) and that the
building of the house made the 1/13th
share of the wife community property as
such making her signature in the deed
of sale void insofar as the 1/13th is
concerned.
Held
It is the basic principle in the law of
co-ownership that no individual co-
owner can claim title to any definite
78

portion of the land or thing owned in
common until the partition thereof.
Prior to that time, all that the co-owner
has is an ideal, or abstract, quota or
proportionate share in the entire thing
owned in common by all the co-owners.
It cannot be validly claimed that the
house constructed was built on land
belonging to her, and 158 cannot apply.
Necessarily, the claim of conversion of
the wifes share from paraphernal to
conjugal must be rejected.
PROPERTY REVIEWER
But the failure of PNB to cause
annotation of its mortgage within 1 yr
from issuance of the title is fatal to its
claim. Land registration proceedings
are proceedings in rem and upon the
expiration of the 1 year within which a
petition to review the decree of
registration may be filed, said decree
and the title pursuant thereto amy no
longer be changed, altered, or modified,
much less set aside.

PNB v CA

Facts
After the death of her husband, Rosa H.Rules on co-ownership
mortgaged the entire conjugal property
to PNB. The title to this property was not applicable to CPG or
still under proceedings but it was ACP
subsequently awarded to the spouses a
year after the mortgage. The mortgage (a) CPG is governed by rules under the
to PNB was, however, not annotated. Family Code. (FC 105-133)
Meanwhile, she defaulted with her (b) Void marriages and cohabitation of
obligation to Manila Trading Co. (MTC) incapacitated persons are governed
and her share (meaning of the by Art. 50, Art. 147, and Art. 148 of
property) was sold at public auction. the Family Code.
Santiago Sambrano, and subsequently,
the Malacas spouses acquired the rights Co-ownership Conjugal
to these shares (registered). Rosa Partnership
similarly defaulted with PNB but the
auction sale was not annotated on the May be Created only by
title. The Court gave PNB a new title. created by an reason of
The CA affirmed and ordered that the ordinary marriage
title to PNB and Reyes be annulled. contract Parties thereto
Sex of co- are on male and
Held owners is one female
After the death of her husband, the immaterial There are only 2
property is supposed to be under co- (kaya kahit conjugal owners
ownership of Rosa and her children. She bading) Profits are
is entitled therefore to only . By There may divided equally,
herself alone, she cannot mortgage the be 2 or more unless there is a
whole property. Assuming that the co-owners contrary
mortgage to PNB was valid, it would be Profits are stipulation in a
so only with regard to the owned by proportional to marriage
Rosa. Under Art 493, any alienation or respective settlement
mortgage by a co-owner shall be limited interests Death of a
to the portion which may be allotted to Death of a spouse dissolves
him in the division upon the termination co-owner does the CPG
of the co-ownership. not dissolve the Encourage by

79
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

co-ownership law for family
Generally solidarity.
co-owners
administer
Co-
ownership is
discouraged by
law
I. Special Rules on
ownership of different
stories of a house as
differentiated from the
provisions in the
Condominium Law (Act
No. 4726)1
Art. 490. Whenever the different
stories of a house belong to different
owners, if the titles of ownership do not
specify the terms under which they
should contribute to the necessary
expenses and there exists no agreement
on the subject, the following rules shall
be observed:
(1) The main and party walls, the
roof and the other things used in
common, shall be preserved at the
expense of all the owners in proportion
to the value of the story belonging to
each.
(2) Each owner shall bear the cost of
maintaining the floor of his story; the
floor of the entrance, front door,
common yard and sanitary works
common to all, shall be maintained at
the expense of all the owners pro rata;
(3) The stairs from the entrance to
the first story shall be maintained at the
expense of all the owners pro rata, with
the exception of the owner of the
ground floor; the stairs from the first to
1 Tells what
please also refer to the material given
during the sem regarding Q&As about
the Condo Act
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
the second story shall be preserved at
the expense of all, except the owner of
the ground floor and the owner of the
first story; and so on successively.
(1) Concept of condominium
Contemplates a multi-story
building with several units.
Partly co-ownership, partly under
individual separate ownership
Each unit belongs separately to
one or more persons
The land and the common areas
are of common use by the different
owners and are under co-ownership
either as contemplated by the Civil
Code or through a corporation.
Exclusive interst in units plus
undivided interst in common areas.
Do not constitute a co-ownership
as provided for in the Civil Code.
When you buy a unit, you are
buying the air space and the interior
surfaces.
External surfaces are common
areas
Beams and posts are common
areas
Easement, unless the master
deed says otherwise, is an exclusive
easement.
Your interest in the common
areas will depend on your interest in
the condo
Your ownership of the condo unit
and the common areas go together
like horse and carriage
What are documents which are
important in buying a condo unit?
(i) deed of sale
(ii) enabling or
master deed
(iii) declaration of
restrictions
each co-owner cannot do
Examples are
how payment be made, how
80

to contribute to common area
expenses, etc.
Sec. 9 The owner of a project shall,
prior to the conveyance of any
condominium therein, register a
declaration of restrictions relating to
such project, which restrictions shall
constitute a lien upon each
condominium in the project and shall
insure to and bind all condominium
owners in the project. Such liens, unless
otherwise provided, may be enforced by
any condominium owner in the project
or by the management body of such
project. The Register of Deeds shall
enter and annotate the declaration of
restrictions upon the certificate of title
covering the land included within the
project, if the land is patented or
register under the land included within
the project, if the land is patented or
registered under the Land Registration
or Cadastral Acts.
Is the interest in the common
areas always a co-ownership?
Is Art. 490 applicable if there is
an owner per floor? NO.
Condominium Act applies.
How are taxes assessed?
Separately assessed
Sec. 25. Whenever real property has
been divided into condominiums, each
condominium separately owned shall be
separately assessed, for purposes of
real property taxation and other tax
purposes to the owners thereof and the
tax on each such condominium shall
constitute a lien solely thereon.
Can you ask for partition of the
common areas? No. Lets see what
the Condominium Law has to say:
Sec.7. Except as provided in the
following section, the common areas
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
shall remain undivided, and there shall
be no judicial partition thereof.
(b) Who manages the condominium?
(i) condominium corporation
(preferred by law) co
terminous with the existence
of the condominium
(ii) co-ownership
(iii) association of owners
(2) Essential requisites for Condominum
(see discussion under Concept of
Condominium)
(3) Rights and Obligations of
Condominium owner
What are the incidents of a
condominium grant?
(a) The boundary of the unit grant
(i) the interior surfaces of the
perimeter walls, floors,
ceilings, windows, and doors
(ii) those which are not part of
the unit bearing walls,
columns, floors, roofs,
foundations, and other
common structural elements
of the building; lobbies,
stairways, hallways, and other
areas of common use,
elevator equipment and
shafts, central heating, central
refrigeration, and central air-
conditioning equipment,
reservoirs, tanks, pumps, and
other central services and
faicilities, pipes, ducts, flues,
chutes, conduits, wires and
other utility installations,
wherever located, except the
outlets thereof when located
within the unit.
(b) Exclusive easement for the use of
the air space encompassed by
the boundaries of th unit
(i) as it exists at any particular
time
81

(ii) as the unit may lawfully be
altered or reconstructed from
time to time
(iii) such easement shall be
auomatically terminated in
any air space upon
destruction of the unitas to
render it untenable
(c) Unless otherwise provided, the
common areas are held in
common by the holders of units,
in equal shares, one for each unit
(d) a non-exclusive easement for
ingress, egress, and support
through the common areas are
subject to such easements
(e) Each condominium unit owner
shall have the exclusive right to
paint, repaint, tile, wax, paper, or
otherwise refinish and decorate
the inner surfaces of the walls,
ceilings, floors, windows, and
doors, bounding his own unit
(f) Each condominium owner shall
have the exclusive right to
mortgage, pledge, encumber his
condominium and to have the
same appraised independently of
the other condominiums but any
obligation incurred by such
condominium owner is personal
to him.
(g) Each condominium owner has
also the absolute right to sell or
dispose of his condominium
unless the master deed contains
a requirement that the property
be first offered to the
condominium owners within a
reasonable period of time before
the same is offered to outside
parties.
Case
Sunset View Condominium v Judge
Campos
Facts
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
Petitioner Corporation filed for the
collection of assessment and insurance
premiums against private respondents.
The latter aver that every purchaser of a
condominium unit, regardless of
whether or not he has fully paid the
purchase price, is a "holder of a
separate interest" mentioned in Section
2 of said Condominium Act" and is
automatically a shareholder of the
condominium corporation.
Held
Section 5 of the Condominium Act
expressly provides that the shareholding
in the Condominium Corporation will be
conveyed only in a proper case. Not
every purchaser of a condominium unit
is a shareholder of the condominium
corporation. The Condominium Act
leaves to the Master Deed the
determination of when the shareholding
will be transferred to the purchaser of a
unit, as clearly provided in the deed in
this case. Ownership of a unit,
therefore, is a condition sine qua non to
being a shareholder in the condominium
corporation. It follows that a purchaser
of a unit who is not yet the owner
thereof for not having fully paid the full
purchase price, is not a shareholder By
necessary implication, the "separate
interest" in a condominium, which
entitles the holder to become
automatically a share holder in the
condominium corporation, as provided
in Section 2 of the Condominium Act,
can be no other than ownership of a
unit. This is so because nobody can be a
shareholder unless he is the owner of a
unit and when he ceases to be the
owner, he also ceases automatically to
be a shareholder. The private
respondents, consequently, who have
not fully paid the purchase price of their
units and are not owners of their units
nor members or shareholders of the
petitioner condominium corporation.
Labnotes
82
 PROPERTY REVIEWER
Q: What is the purpose of the (iii) Presumption is that
Condominium Act? possession of a co-owner is
A: It is a legal device to allow aliens to not adverse.
own real estate. While the prescription is
that possession of a co-owner
J. Extinguishment of Co- cannot take place when the
acts of ownership exercised
Ownership are vague and uncertain, such
prescription arises and
(1) Total destruction of the thing produces all its effects when
the acts of ownership do not
Labnotes have any doubt as to the
Q: Is there still co-ownership if the ouster of the rights of the
house is burned? other co-owners.
A: Yes, as to the lot and debris
(4) Partition or division
(2) Merger of all the interest in one Most natural way of extinguishing
person the co-ownership.
(3) Acquisitive prescription
A division between two or more
(a) By a third person
persons of real or personal property
(b) By one co-owner against the
which they own as co-partners, joins
other co-owners
tenants or tenants in common,
Requisites:
effected by the setting apart of such
(i) Unequivocal acts of
interests so that they may enjoy and
repudiation of the rights of the
possess it in severallity.
other co-owners (acts
amounting to ouster of other
co-owners) (a) Right to ask for partition at any
time except:
Such act of (i) When there is a stipulation
repudiation is brought to against it. (must not be over
the knowledge of such co- 10 years)
owners (ii) When condition of
Must be known to indivision is imposed by
other co-owners and transferor (donor or testator)
shown by clear and must not exceed 20 years
convincing evidence. It Art. 494
must not be merely
(iii) When the legal
turning them away but
nature of community prevents
outright refusal to
partition. (e.g., party wall)
recognize them as co-
(iv)When partition is generally
owners.
prohibited by law e.g. ACP
The evidence (v) When partition would
thereon is clear and render the thing
conclusive unserviceable but the thing
may be sold and the co-
(ii) Open and adverse possession, owners divide the proceeds
not mere silent possession for (Art. 494)
the required period of
extraordinary acquisitive
prescription.

83
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged
to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-
owner may demand at any time the
partition of the thing owned in common,
insofar as his share is concerned.
Nevertheless, an agreement ot keep
the thing undivided for acertain period
of time, not exceeding ten years, shall
be valid. This term may be extended by
a new agreement.
A donor testator may prohibit
partition for a period which shall not
exceed twenty years.
Neither shall there be any partition
when it is prohibited by law.
No prescription shall run in favor of a
co-owner or co-heir against his co-
owners or co-heirs so long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-
ownership.
Action for partition
will fail if acquisitive prescription has
set in.
Labnotes
Q: Can a co-owner become sole owner
by acquisitive prescription?
A: Generally, NO Because he is not in
adverse possession. The exception
is when the possession becomes
adverse when he repudiates the co-
ownership, which amounts to an
ouster of the other co-owners. An
ouster is not mere dispossession.
Because the other co-owners might
just be tolerating the exclusive
possession of one co-owner.
Q: By what kind of acquisitive
prescription?
A: Extraordinary. 30 years must
lapse. Because the co-owner is in
bad faith, knowing that there are
suppose to be other co-owners who
claim title to the property.
(b) Effect of partition Art. 1091,
543, 1092-1093, 499-501
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
Art. 499. The partition of a thing
owned in common shall not prejudice
third persons, who shall retain the rights
of mortgage, servitude or any other real
rights belonging to them before the
division was made. Personal rights
pertaining to third persons against the
co-ownership shall also remain in force,
notwithstanding the partition.
Partition shall not
prejudice third persons
Third persons are
those who do not intervene in the
partition
Personal rights
shall remain
Art. 500. Upon partition, there shall be
a mutual accounting for benefits
received and reimbursements for
expenses made. Likewise, each co-
owner shall pay for damages caused by
reason of his negligence or fraud.
Mutual accounting of benefits
after partition
Reimbursements
Payment of damages due to
negligence or fraud.
Art. 501. Every co-owner shall, after
partition, be liable for defects of title
and quality of the portion assigned to
each of the other co-owners.
Liability for defects of title and
quality of portion assigned to
each
Art. 543. Each one of the participants
of a thing possessed in common shall be
deemed to have exclusively possessed
the part which may be allotted to him
upon the division thereof, for the entire
84

period during which the co-possession
lasted. Interruption in the possession of
the whole or a part of the thing
possessed in common shall be to the
prejudice of all the possessors.
However, in case of civil interruption,
the rules of court shall apply.
Part allotted to a co-owner at
partition will be deemed to be
possessed by such co-owner from
the time the co-ownership
commenced.
Art. 1091. A partition legally made
confers upon each heir the exclusive
ownership of the property adjudicated to
him.
Heir is exclusive heir of property
adjudicated to him.
Art. 1092. After the partition has been
made, the co-heirs shall be reciprocally
bound to warrant the title to and the
quality of, each property adjudicated.
Co-owners reciprocally bound to
each other for warranty of title
and quality of part given to each
(hidden defect) after partition.
Art. 1093. The reciprocal obligation of
warranty referred to in the preceding
article shall be proportionate to the
respective hereditary shares of the co-
heirs, but if any of them should be
insolvent, the other co-heirs shall be
liable for his part in the same
proportion, deducting the part
corresponding to the one who should be
indemnified.
Those who pay for the insolvent heir
shall have aright of action against him
for reimbursement, should his financial
condition improve.
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
Obligation of warranty is
proportionate to respective
hereditary shares.
Insolvency of one makes the
others liable subject to
reimbursement (joint liability).
(c) Right of Creditors of individual
Co-owners Art. 497
Art. 497. The creditors or assignees of
the co-owners may take part in the
division of the thing owned in common
and object to its being effected without
their concurrence. But they cannot
impugn any partition already executed,
unless there has been fraud, or in case it
was made notwithstanding a formal
opposition presented to prevent it,
without prejudice to the right of the
debtor or assignor to maintain its
validity.
All creditors, whether secured or
privileged, and those of any
category under title of alienation,
exchange, donation, assignment,
or other obligation of a real or
personal nature, must be
considered to intervene in the
partition of the common property.
They must have become creditors
during the co-ownership
Co-owner debtors have the duty
to notify the creditors of the
partition
Absence of notice makes partition
not binding on them.
They can contest such partition if
they formulate a formal
opposition thereto.
Assignee a transferee of a part
of the interest of the co-owner
because if a sale or assignment is
total, the assignee or the buyer
should have been subrogated in
the place of the vendor or
assignor, who should be excluded
85

from the co-ownership, and the
assignee or the buyer will
intervene in his own right in
partition.
(d) Procedure for Partition (Rule 69,
Rules of Court)
Art. 496. Partition may be made by
agreement between the parties or by
judicial proceedings. Partition shall be
governed by the Rules of Court insofar
as they consistent with this Code.
(1) Partition may be made:
(a) Orally
Valid and
enforceable among the
parties.
Statute of frauds
does not operate for
partition is not a
conveyance of property
but merely a segregation
and designation of that
part of the property which
belongs to the co-owners.
(b) In writing
Court will just confirm such
written agreement.
(2) Rules of Court does not
preclude amicable settlement
between parties.
(3) Two principal issues in an
action for partition:
(a) plaintiff is indeed a co-
owner of the property
An action for partition will
not preosper as such form
the moment an alleged co-
owner asserts an adverse
title.
If the community character
of the property is proven,
partition may be decreed.
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
(b) how the property is to be
divided between plaintiff
and defendants.
Commissioners may
be appointed by the court
composed of three
competent and
disinterested persons to
make the partition.
Art. 498. Whenever the thing is
essentially indivisible and the co-owners
cannot agree that it be allotted to one of
them who shall indemnify the others, it
shall be sold and its proceeds
distributed.
If property is found to be
incapable of being divided
without great prejudice to the
interest of each party, the
court may order such property
be assigned to one co-owner
subject to the condition that
he will pay the other co-
owners of the value of their
interests as deemed by the
commissioners.
The sale may be made
privately or publicly and third
persons may become
purchasers.
Art. 499. The partition of things owned
in common shall not prejudice third
persons, who shall retain the rights of
mortgage, servitude, or any other rights
belonging to them before the division
was made. Personal rights pertaining to
third persons against the co-ownership
shall also remain in force,
notwithstanding the partition.
Art. 500. Upon partition, there shall be
a mutual accounting for benefits
received and reimbursements for
86

expenses made. Likewise, each co-
owner shall pay for damages caused by
reason of his negligence or fraud.
Q: Who are third persons?
A: All those who do not partake in the
partition.
Art. 501. Every co-owner shall, after
partition, be liable for defects of title
and quality of the portion assigned to
each of the other co-owners.
Chapter on partition after intestate
succession (Arts. 1092-1096)
Subsection 2
Effects of Partition
Art. 1091 A partition legally made
confers upon each heir the exclusive
ownership of the property adjudicated to
him.
Art. 1092 After the partition has been
made, the co-heirs shall be reciprocally
bound to warrant the title to, and the
qulity of, each property adjudicated.
Art. 1093 The reciprocal obligation of
warranty freffed to in the preceding
article shall be proportionate to the
respective hereditary shares of the co-
heirs, but if any one of them should be
insolvent, the other co-heirs shall be
liable for hise part in the same
proportion, deducting the part
corresponding to the one who should be
indemnified.
Those who pay for the insolvent heir
shall have a right of action against him
for reimbursement, should his financial
condition improve. (1071)
Art. 1094. An action to enforce the
warranty among heirs mus be brought
within ten years from the date the right
of action accrues. (n)
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia
PROPERTY REVIEWER
Art. 1095. If a credit should be assigned
as collectible, the co-heirs shall not be
liable for the subsequent insolvency of
the debtor of the estate, but only for his
insolvency at the time the partition is
made.
The warranty of the solvency of the
debtor can only be enforced during the
five years following the partition.
Co-heirs do not warrant bead debts, if so
known to, and accepted by, the
distribute. But if such debts are not
assigned to a co-heir, and should be
collected, in whole or in part, the
amount collected shall be distributed
proportionately among the heirs.
(1072a)
Art. 1096. The obligation of warranty
among co-heir shall cease in the
following cases:
(1) When the testator himself has
made the partition, unless it appears, or
it may be reasonably presumed that his
intention was otherwise, but the
legitime shall always remain
unimpaired;
(2) When it has been so expressly
stipulated in the
agreement of partition, unless there has
been bad
faith; When the eviction is due to a
cause subsequent to the partition, or
has been caused by the fault of the
distribute of the property.
Not in the outline
K. Legal Effects of Co-
Ownership
A co-ownership creates rights in
favor of each one of the co-owners with
respect to the property owned in
common. All the bundle of rights in
ownership are found in co-ownership
also, with each co-owner having all such
rights in conjunction with the other co-
owners.
87
 PROPERTY REVIEWER
Roman Law:
(a) Jus utendi right to use and enjoy
property (including accessions)
(b) Jus fruendi right to the fruits of the
property
(c) Jus abutendi right to consume the
property
(d) Jus disponendi right to dispose of
the property, whether totally or
partially, permanently or temporarily
(e) Jus vindicandi right to recover
property.
(f) Jus possidendi Right to possess the
property by virtue of ownership,
which right is implied from above
bundle of rights.

Applied to co-ownership all the

specific provisions mentioning in detail
the rights of a co-owner with respect to
the thing owned in common could be
subsumed under one of these rights in
ownership. The exercise of such rights
however is limited by concomitant rights
of each co-owner. Thus:

Jus Fruendi rights of co-owner to the

fruits is only in proportion to interest
of the same.
Jus abutendi most limited because of
the prohibition against the alteration
of the property
Jus vindicandi most liberal: civil code
provides that anyone of the co-
owners may exercise the same.

Two senses which can view the rights of

co-owners:
(a) a right over the thing owned in
common limited by concomitant
right of the other co-owners
(b) rights over his ideal share or his
incivided interest over the same
property. absolute owner who can
deal with it like any full owner of an
incorporeal property.

88
BLOCKD2008
al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py
special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia