1.

Which is not a requisite of Co-Ownership

a. Plurality of Subject
b. Unity if the Object
c. Recognition of ideal Share
d. Joint ownership over the whole

2. Which of the following is wrong

a. As a consequence, a co-owner of an undivided parcel of land is an owner of the whole
and over the whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner
of a portion which is actually identified.
b. For Co-Ownership to exist there must be recognition of ideal shares, which determine
the rights and obligations of the co-owners.
c. There exists in favor of each co-owner a portion which is definite in amount but not
physically and actually identified, the same being merely ideal.
d. Each Co-owner is considered are the owner of the whole and over the whole he
exercises the right of dominion.
3. Which of the following does not create co-ownership
a. By will of one owner who acted in GF 2 things of the same or different kinds are mixed
b. By will of owners 2 things of the same or different kinds are mixed
c. Where there are 2 or more heirs, they are co-owners after partition
d. By Occupancy
4.The following acts of the majority are
considered prejudicial to the co-ownership except:
a. when the resolution calls for acts of administration
b. when the resolution goes beyond the limit of mere administration or
invades proprietary rights of the co-owners in violation of Article 491;
c. when the majority authorizes lease, loans or other contracts without security, exposing
the thing to serious danger to the prejudice of the other co-owners; and
d. when the majority refuses to dismiss an administrator who is guilty of fraud or negligence
in his management, or he does not have the respectability, aptitude, and solvency
required of persons holding such positions.

5. Limitations on the Right to Use in co-ownership except

a. such use must be in accordance with the purpose for which the thing is intended;
b. such use must be without prejudice to the rights of the other co-owners; and
c. such use must not be in a manner as to prevent the other co-owners from using the thing
according to their own right.
d. such use must not be prejudicial to third persons

6.Causes of Extinguishment of Co-Ownership, except

a. By the merger in one person of all the interest of the co-ownership;
b. By the death of one of the co-owners
c. By destruction of the thing or loss of the right which is owned in common; and
d. By partition of the property owned in common.

7. In order that a title may prescribe in favor of co-owner, the following are requisites except,
a. The co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an
ouster of the other co-owners.
b. Such positive acts of repudiation need not be made known to the other co-owner.
c. The evidence thereof is clear andconvincing
d. He has been in possession through open, continuous, exclusive; and notorious possession
of the property for the period required by law

True or False
1. There is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are
already concretely determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically
described.
2. A Co-Owner can never claim a definite Portion prior to Partition
3. While a co-owner may bring an action in ejectment under Article 487 without the
necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co- plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to
be instituted for the benefit of all, any adverse judgment cannot prejudice the rights of
the unimpleaded co-owners.
4. In the absence of stipulation to the contrary share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well
as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests.
5. Consent of the majority of co-owners is needed for acts of alteration.
6. A co-owner can sell a definite portion of the co owned property
7. X, a widower, died leaving a will stating that the house and lot where he lived cannot be
partitioned for as long as the youngest of his four children desires to stay there. As coheirs
and co-owners, the other three may demand partition anytime.
8. The renunciation by a co-owner of his undivided share in the co-owned property in lieu of
the performance of his obligation to contribute to taxes and expenses for the preservation
of the property constitutes dacion en pago.

Cases:

1. Will an action for the recovery of possession of a sugar mill wherein it appeared that the
defendant had been in possession for more than four years under a claim of ownership?
2. Lee siblings acquired by succession a parcel of land.Each possessed a specific portion of
the land ostensibly corresponding to his own share. A Lee and B Lee sold their share to
Dee. Their sister C Lee wanted to redeem the share from Dee. Will his action prosper?
3. Alex died without a will, leaving only an undeveloped and untitled lot in Taguig City. He
is survived by his wife and 4 children. His wife told the children that she is waiving her
share in the property, andallowed Bobby, the eldest son who was about to get married, to
construct his house on ¼ of the lot, without however obtaining the consent of his siblings.
After settlement of Alex's estate and partition among the heirs, it was discovered that
Bobby's house was constructed on the portion allocated to his sister, Cathy asked Bobby
to demolish his house and vacate the portion alloted to her. In lieu of demolition, Bobby
offered to purchase from Cathy the lot portion on which his house was constructed. At
that time, the house constructed was valued at P350.000.Can Cathy lawfully ask for
demolition of Bobby's house?
4. A contract was entered among land co-owners wherein they agreed to fill their property,
construct roads therein and then subdivide it into small lots for sale, the proceeds to be
later divided among them, and to this end one of them was to finance the whole
development and subdivision, to prepare a schedule of prices and conditions of sale subject
to the approval of the other two co-owners, to sell the subdivided lots and execute the
 corresponding contracts with buyers, and to receive 50 per cent of the gross selling price
of the lots and the rents that may be collected f rom the property while in the process of
sale, the remaining 50 per cent to be divided in equal portions among the three co-owners.
It was further stipulated that each co owner cannot dispose his share. WON the Contract
is valid.
5. May a co-heir lease his interest?