CO-OWNERSHIP

Article 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. 1

Co-ownership, defined.
 As a manifestation of ownership
o That form of ownership which exists whenever an undivided
thing or right belongs to different persons
o One aspect of ownership
 As a right
o The right of common dominion which two or more persons have
in a spiritual or ideal part of a thing which is not materially or
physically divided

Requisites of co-ownership --- P U I

1) There must be a plurality of owners.
2) The object of ownership must be a thing or right which is undivided.
 Thing – may be real or personal
 Right – e.g. leasehold right
3) Each co-owner’s right must be limited only to his ideal share of the
physical whole.
 Prior to partition, all that the co-owner has is an ideal or
abstract quota in the entire undivided thing owned in co-
ownership. He cannot point to a particular portion of the
property as his very own.

Characteristics of co-ownership --- MuSTCLOG

1) There are two or more co-owners;
2) There is a single object2 which is not materially or physically divided
and over which and his ideal share of the whole, each co-owner
exercises ownership, together with the other co-owners;
3) There is no mutual representation by the co-owners; and
4) It exists for the common enjoyment of the co-owners;
5) It has no distinct legal personality; and
6) It is governed:
a. first of all, by the contract of the parties;
b. otherwise, by special legal provisions,
c. and in default of such provisions, by the provisions of Title III on
Co-ownership.

1
The provisions on co-ownership apply to the absolute community of property between the spouses in all matters
not provided for in the Family Code. (Art. 90, thereof.)
2
There may be several objects over each of which co-ownership is exercised. Together, they are one object or
property.
Ownership of a co-owner
Quantitatively, co-owners may have unequal shares in the common
property.
Qualitatively, each co-owner has a right as any one of the other co-owners.
 Ownership of whole and over his aliquot share
 Every co-owner, jointly with the other co-owners, is the owner of
the whole and over the whole he exercises the right of
dominion, BUT he is at the same time the owner of an aliquot
portion which is truly abstract, because until division is effected
such portion is not concretely determined.
 A co-owner may not convey or adjudicate to himself in fee
simple, by metes and bounds, a determinate physical portion of
real estate owned in common.

Note: NO CO-OWNERSHIP when the different portions owned by different

people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable,
even if not yet technically described.

Sources of co-ownership
Co-ownership may be created by any of the ff. cases:
1. By contract (Art. 494[2], 1775)
2. By law – easement of party walls (658); absolute community of
property between spouses3 (Art. 89, 90, Family Code)
3. By succession - heirs of undivided property before partition
4. By testamentary disposition or donation inter vivos – testator or donor
prohibits partition of property for a certain period of time; see 494[3]
5. By fortuitous event or by chance – commixtion or confusion by
accident (472); discovery of hidden treasure (438)
6. By occupancy - 2 persons catch a wild animal or fish in the open sea,
or gather products (712)
 “conquest”-ish; catch an animal, you occupy it
 Note: if they have a pre-existing agreement, co-ownership
arose from contract; but the ownership is acquired by
occupation

Co-ownership v. joint ownership

Co-ownership Joint ownership
In Anglo- Ownership in common or Joint tenancy
American tenancy in common
law
Ownership Each co-owner, together with There is no abstract share
of share the other (co-owner or co- ownership by the co-owners,
owners), is the owner of the the rights of the joint tenants
whole undivided thing or right being inseparable (as if they

3
In case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable and to be liquidated, partitioned and
distributed is that of equal co-ownership. Buenaventura v. CA.
In a case which involved the issue of co-ownership of properties acquired by the parties to a bigamous marriage
and an adulterous relationship, held: proof of actual contribution in the acquisition of the property is essential.
Saguid v. CA.
 but at the same time of his
own ideal part thereof
Disposition A tenant in common may
of shares dispose of his share or
interest in the property
without the consent of the
others
Effect of the survivors are subrogated
death to the rights of the deceased
immediately upon the death
of the latter by virtue of their
right of survivorship or jus
accrescendi
Legal This       
disability is not true in a co-ownership.
or
incapacity
are one)
A joint tenant s not permitted
to dispose of his share or
interest in the property
without the consent of the
others
If a joint tenant dies, his
ownership dies with him and
instead of his heirs inheriting
his share
The disability (e.g., minority)
of a joint tenant inures to the
benefit of the others for
purposes of prescription,
thus, prescription will not run
against the latter who can
invoke the disability as a
defense.

Co-ownership v. partnership
Co-ownership Partnership
Creation May be created w/o the Can be created only by
formalities of a contract contract, express or implied

XPN: conjugal partnership

Personality No juridical or legal Juridical personality distinct
personality from the partners exists
Purpose Co-owner can dispose of his Partner cannot do so and
share without the consent of substitute another as a
the others; transferee partner in his place
automatically becomes a co-
owner XPN: unless authorized
Mutual Generally, no mutual A partner can generally bind
agency representation the partnership
Distributio Must be proportional to the Subject to the stipulation of
n of profits respective interests of the the partners
co-owners
Effect of not dissolved by the death or dissolves a partnership
death or incapacity of a co-owner
incapacity
Duration an agreement to keep the there may be agreement as
thing undivided for a period to any definite term without
of more than 10 yrs limit set by law
(although it may be extended
by a new agreement) is void
Co-ownership v. easement
Co-ownership Easement
Right of there is in each co-owner a precisely a limitation on the
dominion right of dominion over the right of dominion
whole property and over his
undivided share
Right in Right of ownership rests right of dominion is in favor
favor of solely on each and every co- of one or more persons and
which owner over a single object over two or more different
parties things.

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.

Share of co-owners in benefits and charges

 proportional to the respective interests of each
o Note: contrary stipulation in a contract is VOID.
 presumption: co-owners’ interests are equal unless the contrary is
proven

Illustrative cases:
Cabigao v. Lim

FACTS: L was ordered by the lower court to account to T, predecessor of

C, for 1/2 of the proceeds of the sale of fishes in a fishery of which L and T
were owners in undivided interests. The order referred to was so worded as
to require L to pay T “the 1/2 belonging to the latter’’ of the sale of fishes on
said fishery.

ISSUE: Whether the one-half (1/2) of the income for which L should
account was the gross income or the net income

HELD: Net income. Under Art. 485, a judgment requiring an owner of an

undivided half interest in a fishery to account to his co-owner for one-half of
the value of the fishes sold therefrom is properly interpreted as requiring
the accountant to account for the net proceeds, and not the gross
proceeds, derived from the sales of the fishes.
____________________________________________________________

Lavadia v. Cosme

FACTS: This is an action to recover possession and custody of certain

jewelry which 6 women, named A, B, C, D, E and F had ordered made with
their own money to adorn the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Plaintiff are
F and the heirs of A, B, and C. Defendants are the heirs of D and E.

Chain of custody of the jewelry:

E  E died  heir of E  various descendants  heir of D  D wanted to
make the Catholic Bishop the custodian  plaintiffs objected  F was
designated custodian  action was brought

The trial court decided against defendants, declaring that inasmuch as the
plaintiffs are the owners of 4/6 parts pro indiviso of the jewels in question
and defendants only of 2/6 parts of the same, the plaintiffs have the right to
determine who should be entrusted with their custody. Plaintiffs having
chosen F, the court ordered defendants to deliver the jewelry to her. From
this judgment, defendants appealed.

ISSUE: Have the plaintiffs the right to determine who should be entrusted
with the custody of the jewels?

HELD: Yes. “It not appearing that six original owners did not contribute to
the acquisition of said jewelry in the same proportion, the most reasonable
conclusion — and this is supported by the presumption of law — is that all
of them contributed proportionately to the cost of said jewelry, each one
paying an equal share. If this is true, then we must accept the conclusion of
the court that the appellees are the owners of 4/6 of said jewels, and that
the appellants are only the owners of the remaining 2/6.’’
____________________________________________________________

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.

Limitations on co-owner’s right of use --- P I P

- rights are indeterminable in co-ownership
- a default

Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common provided he does so:
1. In accordance with the purpose for which the co-ownership is
intended
 Determining the purpose
o agreement, express or implied, of the co-owners
o in the absence thereof, according to its nature
o if thing has been previously used for a particular purpose,
it is presumed that such is the purpose intended by the
parties.
  Note: The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by
agreement, express or implied.
o Mere tolerance and prescription based thereon cannot be
invoked by a co-owner to legalize a change in the use of
the thing.
2. In such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership
 Using the community property for a different purpose, or for the
exclusive benefit of a co-owner or in a destructive way,
prejudices the interest of the co-ownership, and ultimately those
of the other co-owners.
3. In such a way as not to prevent the other co-owners from using it
according to their rights
 The coownership exists for the common enjoyment and use of
the property owned in common.
 Co-owners may establish rules on the matter, which will be
binding on all

Illustrative case:
Pardell v. Bartolome

FACTS: Two sisters, VP and MB, are co-owners of a 2-storey house with
an upper floor used as a dwelling and a lower floor available for rent by
stores. VP resided in the province. MB lived with her husband in a room of
the upper floor. In the other room were kept things owned in common with
VP. MB occupied a portion of the lower floor which her husband used as
his office. The other portions were rented to others.

VP brought a suit to recover, among others, rents from MB and her

husband.

ISSUE: Is MB liable to pay rents?

HELD:
1. No, for the use of the room of the upper floor.

MB and her husband occupied the upper floor designed for use as a
dwelling, in the house of joint ownership; but the record shows no
proof that, by so doing, the said MB occasioned any detriment to
the interests of the community property, nor that she prevented
her sister Vicenta [VP] from utilizing the said upper story
according to her rights. It is to be noted that the stores of the lower
floor were rented and an accounting of the rents was duly made to
plaintiffs.

2. One-half, for the use of the portion of the lower floor occupied by her
husband as his office.

Even as the husband of the defendant co-owner of the property, he

had no right to occupy and use gratuitously the said part of the
 lower floor of the house in question, where he lived with his wife, to
the detriment of the plaintiff who did not receive one-half of the
rent which those quarters could and should have produced, had
they been occupied by a stranger, in the same manner that rent
was obtained from the rooms on the lower floor that were used as
stores.’’
____________________________________________________________

Art. 487. Anyone of the co-owners may bring an action in

ejectment.

Action in ejectment
 By anyone of the co-owners
o A co-owner in behalf of himself, and the others
 Reason: a co-owner is owner of the whole and over the
whole he exercises rights of dominion
o All the co-owners are necessary and proper parties
 Purpose: to prevent multiplicity of suits
 Against strangers or a co-owner
o Purpose of action against co-owner who takes possession and
asserts exclusive ownership of the property is to obtain
recognition of the co-ownership
 Binding effect of adverse decision
o GR: Co-owners not bound.
 No mutual representation between co-owners, thus,
adverse decision is not necessarily res judicata w/ respect
to other co-owners
o XPN: Co-owners bound.
 where it appears that the action was instituted in their
behalf with their express or implied consent
 where their rights in the co-ownership are derived from
the title of their predecessors-in-interest found by the
court to be invalid or inexistent
 Where deceased father was not the owner of the
land inherited, the children cannot be co-heirs or co-
owners
 Where co-ownership deemed terminated

Aguilar v. CA

FACTS: Petitioner co-owner filed an action to compel the sale of the

property owned in common under Art. 498.

Article 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.
ISSUE: Was the co-ownership deemed terminated?

HELD: Yes. Since petitioner has decided to enforce his right in court to end
the co-ownership of the house and lot, and respondent has not refuted the
allegation that he has been preventing the sale of the property by his
continued occupancy of the premises, justice and equity demand that
respondent and his family vacate the property so that the sale can be
effected immediately.

When petitioner filed an action to compel the sale of the property, and the
trial court granted the petition, the co-ownership was deemed terminated
and the right to enjoy the possession jointly also ceased. Thereafter, the
continued stay of respondent and his family in the house prejudiced the
interest of petitioner as the property should have been sold and the
proceeds divided equally between them. To this extent and from then on,
respondent should be held liable for monthly rentals, until he and his family
vacate.
____________________________________________________________

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. Anyone 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.

Obligation to contribute to expenses of preservation and to taxes

 Refers only to necessary expenses (546)
o Includes repairs for preservation and taxes
 GR: does not cover useful expenses bcos purpose is not for profit
o XPN: unless such expenses were incurred w/ the consent of
the others
 Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure are not refundable

Renunciation by a co-owner of his share in the co-ownership

 Need not be total
o shall renounce only so much of his undivided interest as may
be equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes
o example:
Where the interests of co-owners A, B, and C are 3/6, 2/6, and
1/6, respectively, and the expenses and taxes advanced by A
amount to P30,000, their shares shall be: A-P15,000; B-P10,000,
and C-P5,000. B may exempt himself from contributing his share
by renouncing P10,000 of his 2/6 interest in the co-ownership. If
his interest is P100,000, he must renounce 1/10 thereof. The
share of B shall accrue to A and C proportionately because they
bear the expenses proportionately. On the basis of their interest
 of 3/6 and 1/6, the proportion is 3/1 or P7,500: P2,500.
UNSA???
 Nature of the renunciation
o in reality a case of dacion en pago4 involving expenses and
taxes already paid.
o constitutes a novation by change of the object of the obligation, 5
the consent of the other co-owners is necessary
o renunciation is not a unilateral act which will extinguish an
existing liability of a co-owner without formal acceptance by the
other co-owners or by the creditor
 Renunciation, a free act
o co-owner who has not waived his share in the co-ownership
may be compelled to pay his share in the cost of its
maintenance BUT HE MAY NOT BE COMPELLED TO
RENOUNCE
 When renunciation not allowed
o Right to renounce, while voluntary, is not absolute
o Waiver is not allowed if it is prejudicial to the co-ownership.

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.

Necessity for agreement on expenses

Acts or decisions affecting the thing owned in common may be grouped
into:
a. Acts of preservation (489)
b. Acts of administration (490)
c. Acts of alteration (491)

 Repairs for preservation

o GR: co-owner has the right to compel the other co-owners to
contribute even when expenses are incurred w/o their
knowledge or prior notice to them
 BUT, if practicable, co-owner must first notify the co-
owners of the necessity for the repairs.
 Absence of this reqt
o bad faith
o co-owners still obliged to contribute but co-
owner who advanced has burden of proving
that the expenses were properly incurred
4
Art. 1245. Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money,
shall be governed by the law of sales.
5
Art. 1291. Obligations may be modified by:
1. Changing their object or principal conditions;
2. Substituting the person of the debtor;
3. Subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor.
  If NOT practicable, reqt may be dispensed with
 If opposed by other co-owners w/o justification, and the
repairs were not undertaken, and damages or losses
resulted, those who opposed such repairs shall be liable
for them.

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
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.

Different stories of a house belonging to different owners

 APP: (1) if the titles of ownership do not specify the terms thereof
(2) there exists no agreement on the subject

Note: distinguished from condominium

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, defined.
 contemplates a change made by a co-owner in the thing owned in
common which involves:
(a) change of the thing from the state or essence in which the
others believe it should remain; or
(b) withdrawal of the thing from the use to which they wish it to
be intended; or
(c) any other transformation which prejudices the condition or
substance of the thing or its enjoyment by the others.
  includes any act of ownership by which a real right or encumbrance is
imposed on the common property (e.g. servitude, registered lease,
mortgage, pledge)
o a co-owner can alienate, assign, mortgage, or substitute
another person in THE UNDIVIDED INTEREST in the property
 XPN: when personal rights are involved
o NOTE: BUT it does not include acts of strict dominion (e.g.
alienation by sale or donation) over the COMMON PROPERTY

GR: UNANIMOUS CONSENT NECESSARY

 alteration may be prejudicial or beneficial to the co-ownership, and
may have been made in opposition to the express or tacit common
agreement, or in accordance with such agreement, or with the
consent of the other co-owners
 because alteration is an act of ownership and not of mere
administration
 NOTE: express consent is not essential; implied consent is sufficient

Limitation: If the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-

owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the court may afford
adequate relief

Liability for alteration (w/o consent of others)

a. lose what he has spent,
b. be obliged to demolish the improvements done, and
c. be liable to pay for losses and damages the community property or
the other co-owners may have suffered

Art. 492. For the administration and better enjoyment of the

thing owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-
owners shall be binding.

There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by

the co-owners who represent the controlling interest in the object of
the co-ownership.

Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of the

majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property
owned in common, the court, at the instance of an interested party,
shall order such measures as it may deem proper, including the
appointment of an administrator.

Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the

co-owners, and the remainder is owned in common, the preceding
provisions shall apply only to the part owned in common.

Acts of administration and better enjoyment, defined.

 acts or decisions for the common benefit of all the co-owners and not
for the benefit of only one or some of them
  an inherent and peculiar feature of co-ownership that although the co-
owners may have unequal shares in the common property,
quantitatively speaking, each co-owner has the same right, in a
qualitative sense, as any of the others

Administration Alteration
Has transitory effects More or less permanent

Purpose: preservation, preparation

and better enjoyment of the thing
and which do not affect its essence,
nature or substance.

Majority rule prevails --- at least 51%

 co-owners who represent the controlling interests in the object of
ownership

“Acts seriously prejudicial” to the interest: when resolution

 calls for a substantial change
o of the thing
o of the use for which it was intended in accordance with
 agreement
 in absence of agreement, the nature of the thing
 authorizes leases, loans, and other contracts w/o necessary security
 upholds the continued employment of an administrator who is guilty
of fraud or negligence, etc. in his management

Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part
and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore
alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in
its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the
effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-
owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in
the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.

Rights of each co-owner under 493

1. full ownership of his part (undivided interest or share)
2. full ownership of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto
3. may alienate, assign or mortgage his ideal interest or share
independently of the other co-owners
 sale or mortgage of common property
o UNDIVIDED PORTION
 sale only affects the proportionate or abstract share,
subject to the results of the partition, BUT NOT those
of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale
 transferee does not acquire any physical or
determinate physical portion of the whole
o DEFINITE PORTION
  valid sale: deed of sale appears to convey a definite
portion of an undivided property does not render the
sale void
 interests acquired are limited to the part assigned
to the co-owner-vendor in the division upon
partition
 other co-owners in estoppel
Pamplona v. Moreto
FACTS: co-owner as vendor pointed out the
location and even indicated the boundaries of the
portion of a particular land he was selling without
objection, protest or complaint by the other co-
owners, but on the contrary acquiesced in and
tolerated such alienation and the occupation of
said portion

HELD: a factual partition or termination of the co-

ownership, although partial, was created and
barred not only the vendor but also his heirs from
asserting as against the vendee any right or title
in derogation of the deed of sale executed by the
said vendor
o WHOLE PROPERTY
 GR: Even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his
own, or without the consent of the other co-owners, the
sale is valid only insofar as his ideal quota is
concerned
 XPN: unless the sale is authorized by the other
co-owners
 Remedy for other co-owners
 action for partition (Rule 69, ROC)
o effect: transferee only gets what would
correspond to his transferor in the partition
o principle: quando res non valet ut ago,
valent quantum valere potest
 the binding force of a contract must
be recognized as far as it is legally
possible to do so
o SPECIFIC PROPERTY
Imperial v. CA
FACTS: an heir who owned 1/2 undivided share in two
parcels of land sold one of the lots without giving to his
co-heir the latter’s share of proceeds

HELD: Inasmuch as the heir in effect, waived his rights

over 1/2 of the remaining lot when he sold and
appropriated solely as his own the entire proceeds of the
 sale, law and equity dictate that the remaining lot should
belong to his co-heir.

Vda. de Castro v. Atienza

FACTS: TC and AC, brothers and co-owners of a
fishpond in equal shares, leased it to AT who paid in
advance the year rental in the amount of P5,000. In the
meantime, TC died. Then AC and AT agreed to set aside
the lease upon the return to AT of P2,500 each by AC
and FC, widow of TC. FC refused to sign the agreement
to annul the lease. AC did not pay AT the amount of
P2,500.

ISSUE: Can AC invoke his own failure to obtain the

signature of FC to elude his obligation to refund the
P2,500?

HELD: No. AC, as co-owner, could validly lease his half-

interest to AT independently of TC and in case the latter
also leased his other half-interest to AT, AC could cancel
his lease agreement. If a lease could be entered into
partially by a co-owner insofar as his interest is
concerned, then, he can also cancel his own lease
independently of the other co-owner. Therefore, the
consent of FC is not essential for the cancellation of the
lease of AC’s one-half undivided share in the fishpond to
AT. AC is liable on his express undertaking to refund the
advance rental paid to him.

4. may substitute another in the enjoyment of his part

 XPN: when person rights are involved
 “personal right” means a right which cannot be transferred
because it affects the personal relations of the co-owners
with one another
5. right of redemption (Art. 1620)
 in case a co-owner sells the shares of other co-owners to a third
person
o if 2 or more want to exercise the right of redemption
 RULE: right of redemption is in proportion to the share
they may have
 does not terminate co-ownership nor give title to the entire
property subject of the co-ownership
6. right to renounce interest
 co-owner may exempt himself from the obligation to contribute to
the expenses of preservation of the object of co-ownership and to
the taxes BY RENOUNCING HIS INTEREST AS MAY BE
EQUIVALENT TO HIS SHARE OF THE EXPENSES AND TAXES
 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 to keep the thing undivided for a

certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This
term may be extended by a new agreement.

A donor or 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.

Termination of co-ownership
1. By the consolidation or merger in only one of the co-owners of all the
interests of the others;
2. By the destruction or loss of the property co-owned;
3. By acquisitive prescription in favor of a third person (Art. 1106.) or a
co-owner who repudiates the co-ownership (Art. 494, last par.);
4. By the partition, judicial or extrajudicial (Art. 496.), of the respective
undivided shares of the co-owners6 (3 Manresa 508.);
5. By the termination of the period agreed upon or imposed by the donor
or testator, or of the period allowed by law (Art. 494, pars. 2, 3.); and
6. By the sale by the co-owners of the thing to a third person and the
distribution of its proceeds among them. (see Art. 498.)

Existence of the fact of ownership

 Presumption: parties thereto admit the fact of co-ownership; partition
presupposes that the thing to be divided is owned in common
o Court must determine first WON co-ownership exists before
ordering partition

Right to demand partition

Partition, defined
the division between two or more persons of real or personal property
which they own in common so that each may enjoy and possess his sole
estate to the exclusion of and without interference from the others
 GR: Each co-owner may at any time demand the partition
o Reason: co-ownership is not conducive to the development of
the community property
6
It has been held that the actual possession and enjoyment of several portions of the common property by some
of the co-owners does not of itself provide proof that the property has already been partitioned and coownership
terminated. A co-owner cannot, without the conformity of the other co-owners or a judicial decree of partition,
adjudicate to himself in fee simple a determinate portion of the property owned in common as his share therein,
to the exclusion of the other co-owners. (Del Banco v. Intermediate Appellate Court)
 o Action is IMPRESCRIPTIBLE
 Unless clear repudiation is clearly communicated to the
co-owners

XPNs to right to demand partition:

1. When the co-owners have agreed to keep the thing undivided for a
certain period of time, not exceeding 10 years;
 Term may extend for as many times by agreement of parties
PROVIDED each extension does not exceed 10 yrs
o If it exceeds 10 yrs, void insofar as excess
o If co-ownership is subject to resolutory condition, it shall
be terminated
1. upon fulfillment of condition OR
2. at the end of 10 yrs, even if condition not fulfilled

Tuason v. Tuason
FACTS: A, B, and C, co-owners of a parcel of land, agreed to
improve the property by filling it and constructing roads thereon
and then subdividing it into small lots for sale. Subsequently, C
brought this suit asking the court to order the partition of the
property. Among other things, C alleges that the contract
entered into was in violation of Article 494 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE: Is the contract valid?

HELD: Yes. “The provisions of Article 494 of the Civil Code are
not applicable. The contract 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
contract to preserve the co-ownership until all the lots shall
have been sold, is a mere incident to the main object of
dissolving the co-ownership. By virtue of the document, the
parties thereto practically and substantially entered into a
contract of partnership as the best and most expedient means
of eventually dissolving the co-ownership, and the life of said
partnership to end when the object of its creation shall have
been attained.’’

2. When the partition is prohibited by the donor or testator for a certain

period not exceeding 20 years;7
7
Art. 870. The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years
are void. (n)

Art. 1083. Every co-heir has a right to demand the division of the estate unless the testator should have expressly
forbidden its partition, in which case the period of indivision shall not exceed twenty years as provided in Article
494. This power of the testator to prohibit division applies to the legitime.
  Reason for 20-year limit: it is against public policy to allow
property to remain undivided for all time
3. When the partition is prohibited by law (Art. 494.);
 there are cases of co-ownership created by law, such as the
community or conjugal property of the husband and wife, family
home, and party walls and fences, where by reason of their
origin or juridical nature, partition is prohibited by law
4. When partition would render the thing unserviceable for the use for
which it is intended (Art. 495.); and
 Co-ownership may be terminated acc. to 498
5. When another co-owner has possessed the property as exclusive
owner and for a period sufficient to acquire it by prescription.
 GR: prescription does not run in favor of or against a co-owner
or co-heir
o REASON: The possession of the co-owner or co-heir is
ordinarily not adverse to the others but, in fact, beneficial
to all of them. He recognizes, expressly or impliedly, the
co-ownership.
o Acquisitive prescription as laches which is based on the
doctrine of equity, cannot be invoked to defeat justice.
 XPN: when a co-owner or co-heir CLEARLY repudiates the co-
ownership or co-heirship
o Prescription begins to run from time of repudiation
o Imprescriptibility cannot be invoked when one of the co-
owners has claimed the property as exclusive owner and
possessed it for a period sufficient to acquire it by
prescription.
 NOTE: co-ownership is a form of trust
o Trustee may claim title by prescription founded on
adverse possession where it appears that:
1. He had performed unequivocal acts of repudiation
of the co-ownership amounting to an ouster of the
cestui que trust or the other co-owners;
2. Such positive acts of repudiation have been made
known to the cestui que trust or the other co-
owners;
3. The evidence thereon is clear, complete and
conclusive in order to establish prescription without
any shadow of doubt; and
4. His possession is open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious.
o “Positive acts of repudiation”
 NOT a mere silent possession of the trustee
unaccompanied with acts amounting to an ouster
of the cestui que trust

Even though forbidden by the testator, the co-ownership terminates when any of the causes for which partnership
is dissolved takes place, or when the court finds for compelling reasons that division should be ordered, upon
petition of one of the co-heirs. (1051a)
 Heirs of F. Restar v. Heirs of D.R. Chicon
FACTS: F, one of the heirs took possession of the
lot in question after the death in 1935 of his father.
He tilled and cultivated the land, introduced
improvements, and enjoyed the produce thereof,
while the other children never possessed the lot,
much less asserted their claim thereto until 1999
when they filed the complaint for partition.

HELD: The statutory period of prescription

commenced not in 1935 but in 1960 when F, who
had neither title nor good faith secured a tax
declaration in his name, the date when it can be
said he adversely claimed ownership of the lot and
the other children were also deemed to have been
aware of the adverse claim.

 Securing a TCT is a notice to the whole world of

exclusive title to the property. – A co-owner of
the property in question executed a deed of
partition and on the strength thereof obtained the
cancellation of the title in the name of their
predecessor and the issuance of a new one
wherein he appears as the new owner of the
property, thereby in effect denying or repudiating
the ownership of the other co-owners over their
shares
 Fraudulent registration under the Torrens
system. – prescription runs from the time the
other co-owners discovered the act

Art. 495. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article,

the co-owners cannot demand a physical division of the thing owned
in common, when to do so would render it unserviceable for the use
for which it is intended. But the co-ownership may be terminated in
accordance with Article 498.

Where partition will render thing unserviceable

 does not prevent the termination of the co-ownership
o assign to one of them, THEN DISTRIBUTE THE PROCEEDS

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 are consistent with this Code.

Purpose and effect

 to put an end to co-ownership
 o each portion is identified and localized
o to vest each a sole estate in specific property, giving to each
one a right to enjoy his estate without supervision or
interference from the others

Action for partition

 2 issues:
o (1) is the plaintiff a co-owner?
o (2) if yes, what portion should go to which co-owner?
 Action for partition implies action for conveyance of lawful share to
prevent multiplicity of suits

How effected
 Judicially – under Rule 69
o the courts must consider and respect the interests of all the
parties; absolute equity; reason and justice
 Extrajudicially – by agreement between co-owners
 Settlement as consequence of suit with approval of a competent court
o If able to agree: Parties can make partition among themselves
and the court shall confirm the same
o If not able to agree: effected with the assistance of not more
than 3 commissions

Note:
 Questions of possession and ownership over the property covered by
the partition are generally concluded by the partition and become a
closed matter.

Partition may only be effected:

1) By the heirs themselves extrajudicially
2) By the court in an ordinary action for partition or in the course of
administration proceedings
3) by the testator himself by an act inter vivos
4) by a third person designated by the testator

Rules governing partition

 Civil Code, Rule 69 of ROC, Rule 39 of ROC

Does the Statute of Frauds apply in partition? NO.

 Partition not legally deemed a conveyance or a sale of property
resulting in change of ownership but simply a segregation and
designation of that part of the property which belongs to each of the
co-owners.
 Partition is, therefore, valid and enforceable although made orally
where no third persons are involved.

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.

Participation of creditors and assignees in the partition

 Scope
o “creditors” ---- all kinds of creditors provided they became so
during the existence of the co-ownership
o “assignees” ---- transferees of the interests of one or more of
the co-owners (e.g. co-owner-vendee)
 HOWEVER, both assignor and assignee have a right to
participate:
 if no delivery yet – assignee only has personal right
 the conveyance is not total – assignor remains a co-
owner
 Right to notice of partition
o Without notice, partition is not binding on them
 Right to object to or impugn partition
o Rules:
 If no notice is given, the creditors or assignees may
question the partition already made;
 If notice is given, it is their duty to appear and make
known their position; they may concur with the proposed
partition or object to its being effected; and
 They cannot impugn a partition already executed or
implemented unless:
 There has been fraud, whether or not notice was
given, and whether or not formal opposition was
presented; or
 The partition was made notwithstanding that formal
opposition was presented to prevent it, even if there
has been no fraud

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.

Sale of thing co-owned to a third person

 Indivisibles – may be sold (publicly or privately) and
o co-owner who sells shall indemnify the others
o proceeds shall be distributed among the others

Ramirez v. Ramirez
FACTS: JR is the owner pro indiviso of 1/6 (or 260.26 sq.ms.) of a
commercial lot, with an area of 1561.60 square meters. He brought an
action for the partition of said lot. The other co-owners (of 5/6 or 1,301.34
sq.ms.) objected to the physical partition of the property in question, upon
the theory that said partition is “materially and legally’’ impossible and
“would work great harm and prejudice to the co-owners.’’

By agreement of the parties, the lower court referred the matter to a

commission to determine whether the property is susceptible of partition,
and submit a plan therefor, if feasible, as well as to report thereon.
Subsequently, the commissioners submitted their individual reports with
their respective plans for the segregation of JR’s share.

After due hearing, the court rendered a decision declaring that JR is

entitled to the segregation of his share, and directing that the property be
partitioned in accordance with the plan submitted by a commissioner.

ISSUE: Should the physical segregation of the 1/6 share be allowed? YES.

HELD: (1) There is no evidence that the segregation will work prejudice to
the co-owner. — “It is urged that a physical division of the property will
cause ‘inestimable damage’ to the interest of the co-owners. No evidence,
however, has been introduced, or sought to be introduced, in support of
this allegation. 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. But then, if plaintiff’s
share of 260.26 square meters were segregated from the property in
question, there would still remain a lot of 1,301.34 square meters for
appellants herein. A real estate of this size, in the very heart of Manila, is
not, however, inconsequential, in comparison to that of the present property
of the community. In other words, we do not believe that its value would be
impaired, on account of the segregation of plaintiff’s share, to such extent
as to warrant the conclusion that the property is indivisible.’’

(2) Article 495 is not applicable. — “Appellants argue that, instead of

making the aforementioned segregation, plaintiff’s share should be sold to
them under Article 495. They apparently assume, once again, that the
alleged ‘inestimable damage’ to be suffered by the property, if plaintiff’s
share were segregated, is equivalent to rendering it unserviceable for the
use for which it is intended. Independently of the fact that the minor
premise of this syllogism — the alleged ‘inestimable damage’ — has not
been established, the conclusion drawn by appellants does not follow
necessarily. Indeed, the record shows that there are two (2) buildings on
the land in question. There is nothing to show that, after segregating
plaintiff’s share, the buildings left on the remaining 1,301.34 square meters,
representing defendant’s share, would be unserviceable, either for
commercial or for residential purposes. On the contrary, it seems obvious
that plaintiff would not insist upon the partition prayed for, if his share were
unserviceable for either — particularly the commercial — purpose. In fact,
every one of the aforementioned commissioners, including the one
representing defendant’s herein, recommended the segregation of
plaintiff’s share. The commissioners merely failed to agree on the precise
configuration thereof.’’

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.

Rights of third persons, protected.

 third persons - all those with real rights, such as mortgage and
servitude over the thing owned in common or with personal rights
against the co-owners who had no participation whatever in the
partition
 real rights and personal rights – see 493

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.

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.

Obligations of co-owners upon partitions

1) Mutual accounting for benefits received, for the fruits and other
benefits of the thing belong to all the co-owners (see Art. 485.);
2) Mutual reimbursements for expenses (i.e., necessary expenses,
taxes, and others in proper cases), for if they share in the benefits,
they should also share in the charges (Ibid.);
3) Indemnity for damages caused by reason of negligence or fraud, for
example, in the making of expenses or alterations, for it is logical and
just; and
4) Reciprocal warranty for defects of title or quality of the portion
assigned to a co-owner (e.g., land allotted to a co-owner belongs to a
third person or property assigned is of inferior quality or has hidden
defects), for it is also justified by considerations of reason and justice.

THE CONDOMINIUM ACT

R.A. No. 4726, as amended

DEFINITIONS
 Condominium
o an interest in real property consisting of a separate interest in a
unit in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an
undivided interest in common directly or indirectly, in the land
on which it is located and in other common areas of the building
o A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in
other portions of such real property.
o Title to the common areas, including the land, or the
appurtenant interests in such areas, may be held by a
corporation specially formed for the purpose (hereinafter known
as the “condominium corporation’’) in which the holders of
separate interests shall automatically be members or
shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the
appurtenant interest of their respective units in the common
areas.