71/ Property Mallilin vs Castillo Cohabitation Facts:

Sources of Co-Ownership: Law:

Eustaquio Mallilin Jr. and Ma. Elvira Castillo were alleged to be both married and with children but separated from their respective spouses and cohabited in 1979 while respective marriages still subsist. They established Superfreight Customs Brokerage Corporation during their union of which Mallilin was the President and Chairman and Castillo as Vice President and Treasurer. They acquired real and personal properties which were registered solely in Castillos name. Due to irreconcilable conflict, they separated in 1992. Mallilin then demanded his share from Castillo in the properties but the latter refused alleging that the properties had been registered solely in her name. Furthermore, Castillo denied that she and Mallilin lived as husband and wife because they were still legally married at the time of cohabitation. The lower court dismissed the petition for Partition and Mallilins claim for co-ownership. Issue: Whether or not the action for partition is the correct remedy to be availed of. Held: Yes. The SC and CA ordered the case remanded to the court of origin for trial on the merits because an action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved. If the defendant asserts exclusive title over the property, the action for partition should not be dismissed. Rather, the court should resolve the case and if the plaintiff is unable to sustain his claimed status as a co-owner, the court should dismiss the action, not because the wrong remedy was availed of, but because no basis exists for requiring the defendant to submit to partition. Petitioner was not actually attacking the validity of the titles but in fact, recognized their validity. Article 148 provides for a limited co-ownership in cases where the parties in union are incapacitated to marry each other.