PARDELL v.

BARTOLOME
G.R. No. L-4656 November 18, 1912

FACTS:
Petitioner Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell and respondent Matilde Ortiz y Felin
Bartolome were the existing heirs of the late Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin.
On 1888, Matilde and co-defendant Gaspar de Bartolome y Escribano took it
upon themselves without an judicial authorization or even extra judicial
agreement the administration of the properties of the late Calixta and Miguel.
These properties included a house in Escolta Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a
house in Washington Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a lot in Magallanes Street,
Vigan, Ilocos Sur; parcels of rice land in San Julian and Sta. Lucia; and
parcels of land in Candon, Ilocos Sur.

Vicenta filed an action in court asking that the judgement be rendered in

restoring and returning to them one half of the total value of the fruits and
rents, plus losses and damages from the aforementioned properties.
However, respondent Matilde asserted that she never refused to give the
plaintiff her share of the said properties. Vicenta also argued that Matilde and
her husband, Gaspar are obliged to pay rent to the former for their occupation
of the upper story of the house in Escolta Street.

ISSUE: Is defendant Matilde Ortiz, as co-owner of the house on Calle Escolta,

entitled, with her husband, to reside therein, without paying to her co-owner,
Vicenta Ortiz, one-half of the rents which the upper story would have
produced, had it been rented to a stranger?
RULING:
No. The Court ruled that the spouses are not liable to pay rent. Their
occupation of the said property was a mere exercise of their right to use the
same as a co-owner. Each co-owner or tenant in common of undivided realty
has the same rights therein as the others; he may use and enjoy the same
without other limitation except that he must not prejudice the rights of his co-
owners, but until a division is effected, the respective parts belonging to each
can not be determined; each co-owner exercises joint dominion and is entitled
to joint use.

Matilde Ortiz and her husband occupied the upper story, designed for use
as a dwelling, in the house of joint ownership; but the record shows no proof
that, by so doing, Matilde occasioned any detriment to the interests of the
community property, nor that she prevented her sister Vicenta 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
the plaintiffs.