USUFRUCT

Article 562

Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another

 with the obligation of preserving its form and
substance
 unless the title constituting it or the law
otherwise provides.

USUFRUCT is the combination of jus utendi and jus

fruendi.

Jus disponendi is the essence of NAKED OWNERSHIP.

Recall Formula:

Usufruct = Full ownership – Naked ownership.

Object of usufruct:

1. May be real or personal property

2. May be sterile or productive
3. May be created over a right as long as it is –
a. not strictly personal or intransmissible
b. has an independent existence
 EASEMENTS OF SERVITUDES

Article 613

REAL EASEMENT (or predial easement)

An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed

upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable
belonging to a different owner.

Article 614

PERSONAL EASEMENT

Servitudes established for the benefit of a community, or

of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate
does not belong.

Kind of estate:

Servient estate – one which is burdened by an easement.

Dominant estate – one which is benefitted as a result of an

easement.

If the easement is a personal easement, there is no dominant

estate because the dominant estate only exists if it is a real
easement, wherein the benefit is for a different owner.

Borbalo vs. Hidden View Homeowners

A co-owner of the common areas

CO-OWNERSHIP A co-owner may bring such an action, 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.
Article 484
If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that
There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an he claims possession for himself and not for the co-
undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. ownership, the action will not prosper.

Share in benefits and charges Repairs for preservation and taxes

Article 485 Article 488

The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the
charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests.
Each co-owner shares proportionately in the accretion or
alluvium of the property.
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.
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.
A co-owner may exempt himself from payment of expenses
and taxes 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.
When repairs are made

Use of co-owned property Article 489

Article 486 Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of
the co-owners, BUT he must, if practicable, first notify his co-
Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common. owners of the necessity for such repairs.

Conditions: Expenses to improve or embellish the thing shall be decided

1. he can only use it in accordance with the purpose
for which it is intended
2. the interest of the co-ownership must not be injured
or prejudiced
3. the other co-owners must not be prevented from
using it according to their rights
The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by
agreement, express or implied.
by a financial majority.
Alteration
Article 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

Actions the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest,
the courts may afford adequate relief.
Article 487

Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. Administration and better enjoyment

Wee vs. De Castro For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing
owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-
Article 487 covers all kinds of action for the recovery or owner shall be binding.
possession, such as:
Replevin Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of the
Forcible entry majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the
Unlawful detainer (accion interdictal) property owned in common, the court, at the instance of an
Recovery of possession (accion publiciana) interested party, shall order such measures as it may deem
Recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion) proper, including the appointment of an administrator.

Note:
 4. when physical partition would render the property
Number of co- unserviceable
owners who 5. when the legal nature of the common property
must give does not allow partition
consent
One For repairs, Prescription in favor of co-owner against the other co-
Action for ejectment owners
All For alterations,
Act of ownership No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir
Financial Useful improvements, against a co-owner or co-heirs as long as he expressly or
majority Luxurious embellishments, impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
Acts of administration and better
enjoyment Exception:

A co-owner may become the exclusive owner of the co-

Rights of co-owner on ideal share
Article 493
Each co-owner has full ownership of his part and the fruits
and benefits pertaining thereto
He may alienate, assign, or mortgage his ideal share
He may substitute another person in its enjoyment, except
when personal rights are involved
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.
Partition
owned property through prescription if the following are
met:
1. he must make known to the other co-owners that
he is definitely repudiating the co-ownership and
claiming complete ownership of the entire property
2. there must be clear and convincing evidence of such
repudiation and knowledge on the part of the other
co-owners
3. the other requirements of OCEAN possession and
the required period are present
4. the prescriptive period will only start to run from
such repudiation
Article 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.

Article 494 Article 496. Partition may be made by agreement between

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.
An agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain
period of time, not exceeding 10 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 20 years.
the parties or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be
governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent
with this Code.
Article 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.

Neither shall there be partition when it is prohibited by law.
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir
against a co-owner or co-heirs as long as he expressly or
impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
Exception:
A co-owner may not successfully demand partition:
1. if by agreement, for a period not exceeding 10
years, partition is prohibited
2. when partition is prohibited by a donor or testator
3. when partition is prohibited by law
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.
Article 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.
Article 500. Upon partition, there shall be a mutual
accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for
expenses made. Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for STAIRS FROM ENTRANCE all owners except owner of
damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud. TO THE FIRST STORY ground floor
STAIRS FROM ENTRANCE all owners except owner of
Article 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition, be liable for OF SECOND STORY ground and first floor
defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of
the other co-owners.

Spouses Rol vs. Racho

Right of legal redemption G.R. No. 246096, January 13, 2021

A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption
in case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any of
them, are sold to a third person.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of
redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share
they may respectively have in the thing owned in common.
Exercise within 30 days from the notice in writing of the
vendor.
Sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property requires
the consent of all the co-owners. Without such unanimous
consent, a co-owner can only convey his undivided, aliquot
interest over a co-owned property; he/she has no right to
divide, and thereafter, convey definite portions thereof, viz.:
If the alienation precedes the partition, the co-owner cannot
sell a definite portion of the land without consent from his or
her co-owners. He or she could only sell the undivided
interest of the co-owned property.

As summarized in Lopez v. Illustre, "if he is the owner of an

Right of legal pre-emption undivided half of a tract of land, he has a right to sell and
convey an undivided half, but he has no right to divide the
The right of legal pre-emption shall not be exercised except lot into two parts, and convey the whole of one part by
within 30 days from the notice in writing of prospective metes and bounds."
vendor.
The undivided interest of a co-owner is also referred to as the
"ideal or abstract quota" or "proportionate share." On the
other hand, the definite portion of the land refers to specific
Perpendicular co-ownership metes and bounds of a co-owned property.

Situation: Clemente vs. Republic

One house/building has different storeys or floors. Each
storey belongs to different owners. The titles of ownership do
not specify the terms and conditions for contribution with
respect to necessary expenses. There exists no agreement on
the subject.
Rules:
1. each owner must bear the expenses for his own unit
2. proportionate contribution is required for the
preservation of the main walls, party walls, roof and
other things used in common
3. each floor owner must bear the expenses of his
floor
4. stairs are to be maintained from storey to storey, by
the users
G.R. No. 220008, February 20, 2019
It has been settled that a co-heir or co-owner may bring suit
without impleading all the other co-owners if the suit is for
the benefit of all. In Spouses Mendoza v. Coronel,22 we held:
[T]he law now allows a co-owner to bring an action for
ejectment, which covers all kinds of actions for the recovery
of possession, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
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.23
In subsequent cases, this Court has consistently held that as
long as the co-owner recognizes the co-ownership, there is
no need to implead all the co-owners in all kinds of action
for recovery of possession.

In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real

whenever the different
stories of a house belong to
different owners
if no agreement, then:
MAIN AND PARTY WALLS,
ROOF AND OTHER THINGS
USED IN COMMON
INDIVIDUAL FLOOR
FLOOR OF THE ENTRANCE,
FRONT DOOR, COMMON
YARD, SANITARY WORKS
parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the
terms under the agreement Civil Code and the relevant jurisprudence, any one of them
may bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of
co-owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners,
namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of
all owners in proportion to the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto.
value of the story The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are
belonging to them not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be
individual owner afforded in the suit even without their participation, since the
all owners pro rata suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-
owners.
In this case, although petitioner alone filed the complaint for
unlawful detainer, he stated in the complaint that he is one of
the heirs of the late Lilia Castigador, his mother, who
inherited the subject lot, from her parents. Petitioner did not
claim exclusive ownership of the subject lot, but he filed the
complaint for the purpose of recovering its possession which
would redound to the benefit of the co-owners. Since
petitioner recognized the existence of a co-ownership, he, as
a co-owner, can bring the action without the necessity of
joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs.
Moreover, there is no need for the settlement of the estate
before one of the heirs can institute an action on behalf of
the other co-heirs. Although an heir's right in the estate of
the decedent which has not been fully settled and
partitioned is merely inchoate, Article 493 of the Civil Code27
gives the heir the right to exercise acts of ownership.28 Thus,
even before the settlement of the estate, an heir may file an
action for reconveyance of possession as a co-owner thereof,
provided that such heir recognizes and acknowledges the
other co-heirs as co-owners of the property as it will be
assumed that the heir is acting on behalf of all the co-heirs
for the benefit of the co-ownership.
Carvajal vs. CA
G.R. No. L-44426 February 25, 1982
Both sales were made while the petition for partition filed by
Evaristo Espique was still pending before the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan.
The action for ejectment and recovery of possession
instituted by herein respondents in the lower court is
premature, for what must be settled frist is the action for
partition. Unless a project of partition is effected, each heir
cannot claim ownership over a definite portion of the
inheritance. Without partition, either by agreement between
the parties of by judicial proceeding, a co-heir cannot
dispose of a specific portion of the estate. For where there
are two or more heirs, the whole estate such heirs. 1 Upon
the death of a person, each of his heirs becomes the
undivided owner of the whole estate left wtih respect to the
part of portion which might be adjudicated to him, a
community of ownership being thus formed among the co-
owners of the estate or co-heirs while it remains undivided. 2
While under Article 493 of the New Civil Code, each co-
owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the
fruits and benefits pertaining thereto and he may alienate,
assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in
its enjoyment, the effect of the alienation or the mortgage
with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited, by mandate
of the same article, to the portion which may be allotted to
him in the division upon the termination of the co-
ownership. He has no right to sell or alienate a concrete,
specific, or determinate part of the thing in common to the
exclusion of the other co-owners because his right over the
thing is represented by an abstract or Ideal portion without
any physical adjudication. 3 An individual co- owner cannot
adjudicate to himself or claim title to any definite portion of
the land or thing owned in common until its actual partition
by agreement or judicial decree. Prior to that time all that the
co-owner has is an Ideal or abstract quota or proportionate
share in the entire thing owned in common by all the co-
owners. 4 What a co owner may dispose of is only
his undivided aliquot share, which shall be limited to the
portion that may be allotted to him upon partition. 5 Before
partition, a co-heir can only sell his successional rights. 6
In the case at bar, the fact that the sale executed by Evaristo
G. qqqEspique in favor of respondents and the sale executed
by Estefanio Espique in favor of petitioner were made before
the partition of the property among the co-heirs does not
annul or invalidate the deeds of sale and both sales are valid.
However, the interests thereby acquired by petitioner and
respondents are limited only to the parts that may be
ultimately assigned to Estefanio and Evaristo, respectively,
upon the partition of the estate 7 subject to provisions on
subrogation of the other co-heirs to the rights of the
stranger-purchaser provided in Article 1088 of the Civil
Code. 8 Respondent court's ruling that the sale by Estefanio
in favor of petitioner is not valid because of lack of notice to
his co-heirs is erroneous. Such notice in writing is not a
requisite for the validity of the sale. Its purpose is merely to
apprise the co-heirs of the sale of a portion of the estate, for
them to exercise their preferential right of subrogation under
Article 1088 of the New Civil Code, that is, the right to
redeem the property sold within one month from the time
they were notified in writing of the sale by a co-heir. (There is
nothing in the record to indicate that such right of
subrogation was in effect sought to be exercised upon the
co-heirs' having learned of the sale, which is not in issue
here.)
Thus, respondents have no right to eject petitioners nor
demand payment of rentals for the use of the property in
dispute. Until the partition of the estate is ordered by the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in the pending partition
proceedings and the share of each co-heir is determined by
metes and bounds, neither petitioner nor respondents can
rightfully claim that what they bought is the part in dispute.
Dr. Treyes vs. Larlar et al
G.R. No. 232579, September 08, 2020
This Court has stated that no judicial declaration of heirship
is necessary in order that an heir may assert his or her right
to the property of the deceased.
Under the Civil Code, when the brothers and sisters of a
deceased married sister survive with her widower, the latter
shall be entitled by law to one-half of the inheritance and the
brothers and sisters to the other half. The Civil Code likewise
states that this successional right of the legal heirs is vested
in them from the very moment of the decedent's death.
"[F]rom the moment of the death of the decedent, the heirs
become the absolute owners of his property, subject to the
rights and obligations of the decedent, x x x [t]he right of the
heirs to the property of the deceased vests in them even
before judicial declaration of their being heirs in the testate
or intestate proceedings."81
In fact, in partition cases, even before the property is
judicially partitioned, the heirs are already deemed co-
owners of the property. Thus, in partition cases, the heirs are
deemed real parties in interest without a prior separate
judicial determination of their heirship.82 Similarly, in the
summary settlement of estates, the heirs may undertake the
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the decedent
amongst themselves through the execution of a public
instrument even without a prior declaration in a separate
judicial proceeding that they are the heirs of the
decedent.83 If there is only one legal heir, the document
usually executed is an affidavit of self-adjudication even
without a prior judicial declaration of heirship.
Jurisprudential Support on the Institution of
an Ordinary Civil Action by Legal Heirs
arising out of a Right based on Succession
without the Necessity of a Previous Judicial
Declaration of Heirship
Adolfo vs. Cruz
G.R. No. 259061. August 15, 2022
[w]here there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the
decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such
heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased.
Being a co-owner, petitioner cannot be ordered to vacate the
house
Being a co-owner of the property as heir of Carolina,
petitioner cannot be ejected from the subject property. In a
co-ownership, the undivided thing or right belong to
different persons, with each of them holding the property
pro indiviso and exercising [his] rights over the whole
property. Each co-owner may use and enjoy the property
with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the
interests of his co-owners. The underlying rationale is that
until a division is actually made, the respective share of each
cannot be determined, and every co-owner exercises,
together with his co-participants, joint ownership of the pro
indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of it.
Ultimately, respondents do not have a cause of action to
eject petitioner based on tolerance because the latter is also
entitled to possess and enjoy the subject property. Corollarily,
neither of the parties can assert exclusive ownership and
possession of the same prior to any partition. If at all. the
action for unlawful detainer only resulted in the recognition
of co-ownership between the parties over the residential
house.
When Perpetua died on July 19, 1989,34 the conjugal
partnership between her and Teodulo was terminated
pursuant to Article 126(1) of the Family Code.35 The rule was
the same under Article 175(1) of the Civil Code: "The conjugal
partnership of gains terminates x x x upon the death of either
spouse x x x."
With Perpetua's death, the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership between her and Teodulo should have ensued.
Pursuant to Article 129 of the Family Code, after inventory,
mutual restitution and payment of debts, the net remainder
of the conjugal properties, constituting the profits of the
conjugal partnership, shall be divided equally between the
spouses and/or their respective heirs, unless a different
proportion has been agreed upon in their marriage
settlements, or unless the surviving spouse or the heirs of the
deceased renounce their shares, and the presumptive
legitimes of the common children shall be then delivered, to
be taken from the total properties (the share in the conjugal
properties and the balance of separate properties) pertaining
to each spouse in proper cases in accordance with Article 51
of the Family Code.36 In the case, however, of the dissolution
of the marriage due to the death of a spouse, the common
children are entitled to their respective shares as legal heirs
in the estate of the deceased spouse.
In many instances, however, the surviving spouse and the
heirs of the deceased spouse do not liquidate the conjugal
properties and they keep them undivided. In such case, a co-
ownership is deemed established for the management,
control and enjoyment of the common property. Since the
conjugal partnership no longer subsists, the fruits of the
common property are divided according to the law on co-
ownership; that is, in proportion to the share or interest of
each party.37 That share or part of the co-heir in the co-
ownership prior to partition is pro indiviso, undivided or
abstract, not specific, delineated or demarcated by metes
and bounds.
As far as the conjugal partnership property of Teodulo and
Perpetua, subject matter of the conflict herein, 1/2 undivided
interest therein pertained to Teodulo as his conjugal share
and the other half, which was Perpetua's conjugal share,
pertained to her legal heirs. Based on the facts, there is no
mention of conjugal debts at the time of Perpetua's death.
There is likewise no mention of any conjugal property other
than the subject property. Thus, the subject property became
co-owned property of Teodulo and the heirs of Perpetua
upon Perpetua's death.
Pending liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the
alienations and encumbrances of the parties or co-owners
must be considered limited to their respective undivided
interests, and cannot involve any particular or specific
property or physical part of it. This means that the alienation
or encumbrance may be valid as to the undivided interest of
the vendor but not as to the corpus or body or physical
portion of the property; and the vendee will get the property
that may be adjudicated in the partition to the vendor, but
not any portion of what may be allotted to the other co-
owners
Aside from the dissolution of the marriage between Perpetua
and Teodulo and their conjugal partnership, Perpetua's death
triggered the transfer of her inheritance or hereditary estate
to her legal heirs pursuant to Article 777 of the Civil Code,
which provides: "The rights to the succession are transmitted
from the moment of the death of the decedent." Since there
is no mention of any will that she left, Perpetua died
intestate.
Perpetua was survived by her husband, Teodulo, and their
seven legitimate children, namely, respondents Teodulo, Jr.,
Rosario, Ofelia, Blesilda, Armida, Jesus and Cynthia, all
surnamed Sison. Article 996 of the Civil Code states: "If a
widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants
are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same
share as that of each of the children." Since there are two or
more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its
partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the
payment of debts of the deceased, as provided in Article
1078 of the Civil Code.
Upon Perpetua's death, her one-half pro indiviso conjugal
share in the subject property was inherited by her widower,
Teodulo, and their seven legitimate children equally, with
each legal heir entitled to 1/8 pro indiviso share therein, or
1/16 undivided interest in the subject property. In totality,
Teodulo became co-owner of the subject property to the
extent of 9/16, consisting of his 1/2 conjugal share and 1/16
of the conjugal share of Perpetua. Thus, at the time of
Perpetua's death, the subject property became co-owned by
Teodulo (to the extent of 9/16) and each of the seven
children (to the extent of 1/16 each).
POSSESSION