FACTS

- Abejo filed action to recover possession with damages against De Guia. HE was the owner of ½
unidivided portion of a fishpond in Bulacan. He owned approx 32,611 sq m of the 79,220 sq m
but De Guia continues to possess entire fishpond w/o any contract and rent since it has expired.
De Guia refuse to surrender ownership and possession.
- De guia, a lawyer, said complaint has no cause of action and has prescribed. He said it was
Maxima Termulo who own the fishpond then transferred entirety to Primitiva Lejano, and they
just authorize Abejo to possess fishpond. Abejo ownership of ½ is void. De guia sought payment
for the improvements he built.
- De Guia offered compromise, settle claim of Abejo of 300k and lease entire fishpond to any
party of Abejo’s choice.

Abejo

- 2 parcels of land cover the fishpond. Owned equally by Primitiva and Lorenza married to Abejo.
- Abejo bought ½ from father of Abejo. Prior to sale with consent of Father Abejo the heirs of
Primitiva leased it to Victa and De Guia until Nov 1979. When term expired written demands of
back paymet of rentals were served last on Nov 1983 and for De guia to vacate but he refused.
- Anticipation that De guia will vacate fishpond in Dec 1983 , Abejo entered into kasunduan with
Vilarico for 50k. But this kasunduan was cancelled and the 50k was returned cause De guia did
not vacate. So Abejo asked fo rpayment of rentals and damages =450k.

De guia

- Entire fishpond owned by Primitiva then leased to him. He then became owner of ½ portion and
questioned ownership of Abejo as void.he introduced 500k worth of improvements on area of
Abejo so he wanted to be reimbursed.

RTC ordered De Guia to turn over to Abejo possession of the ½ unidivided portion of fishpond and there
will be equal sharing in the fruits and benefits after partition and pay damages.

CA affirmed RTC.

ISSUE

Whether or Not an action for recovery of possession and turn over of the ½ undivided portion of a
common property is proper before partition

HELD

Under Article 484 of the Civil Code, there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided
thing or right belongs to different persons. 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 truly abstract. ]On the other hand, 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
Any co-owner may file an action under Article 487 not only against a third person, but also
against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of the
property. In the latter case, however, the only purpose of the action is to obtain recognition of the co-
ownership.  The plaintiff cannot seek exclusion of the defendant from the property because as co-owner
he has a right of possession.  The plaintiff cannot recover any material or determinate part of the
property
Thus, judicial or extra-judicial partition is necessary to effect physical division of the FISHPOND
between ABEJO and DE GUIA. An action for partition is also the proper forum for accounting the profits
received by DE GUIA from the FISHPOND. However, as a necessary consequence of such recognition,
ABEJO shall exercise an equal right to possess, use and enjoy the entire FISHPOND. An action to demand
partition is imprescriptible and not barred by laches.
SC affirmed CA.