VIRGILIO B. AGUILAR, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SENEN B.

AGUILAR,
respondents.
G.R. No. 76351 - October 29, 1993

FACTS
The petitioner and respondent are brothers who purchased a house and lot in Paranaque for
their father. By virtue of a written memorandum, they agreed that Petitioner’s share in the co-
ownership was two-thirds while the Respondent’s share is one-third with Respondent Senen
assuming the remaining mortgage obligation of the original owners. Petitioner Virgilio was then
disqualified from obtaining a loan from the SSS . The brothers agreed that the deed of sale
would be executed and the title be registered in the meantime to Senen. It was further agreed
that Senen would stay with the said house and lot with their father considering that Virgilio’s
family lived in Cebu. Upon the death of their father, petitioner demanded that Senen vacate the
property and sell it then divide the proceeds between them. The respondent refused despite
persistent attempts prompting the petitioner to file an action to compel the sale of the house
using the written memorandum as basis of the partition. The trial court ordered that the
property be sold to a third person and to divvy the proceeds equally. Private respondent and
his family refuse to pay monthly rentals to petitioner from the time their father died in 1975
and to vacate the house so that it can be sold to third persons. Petitioner alleges that
respondent's continued stay in the property hinders its disposal to the prejudice of petitioner.
On the part of petitioner, he claims that he should be paid two-thirds (2/3) of a monthly rental
of P2,400.00 or the sum of P1,600.00. In resolving the dispute, the trial court ordered
respondent to vacate the property so that it could be sold to third persons and the proceeds
divided between them equally, and for respondent to pay petitioner one-half (1/2) of P2,400.00
or the sum of P1,200.00 as monthly rental, conformably with their stipulated sharing reflected
in their written agreement.

ISSUE
Whether the Respondent Senen must pay the petitioner for the rentals of his portion of the
property? (NO)

RULING
Being a co-owner respondent has the right to use the house and lot without paying any
compensation to petitioner, as he may use the property owned in common 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 other co-owners.9 Each co-owner of property held pro indiviso exercises his
rights over the whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than
that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners, the reason being that until a division is
made, the respective share of each cannot be determined and every co-owner exercises,
together with his co-participants joint ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to
his use and enjoyment of the same.