Rustico Adille v CA, Emeteria/ Teodoro/ Domingo/ Josefa/ Santiago Asejo GR No.

L-44546 1/29/1988 Facts of the case: Feliza Alzul had an 11,325 sqm parcel of land. She had 2 valid marriages in her lifetime. The first marriage bore a single child (petitioner) and the second marriage bore 5 (respondents). During the time Felisa was still alive, she sold the property with a period of repurchase of 3 years. After she died, petitioner repurchased the land in its entirety and he subsequently claimed the land solely his. Upon discovery of this by his half-brothers/sisters, they filed a case for partition of the repurchased land. The issue raised in this case arose when the CA ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the petitioner and respondents are co-owners of the land in question. Furthermore, this case is traced further back to when Issue: Whether or not the act of repurchasing the land and paying its full amount entitles the petitioner to sole ownership of the land? Held: No. Ratio: The right of repurchase may be exercised by a co-owner with respect to his share alone. While the records show that the petitioner redeemed the property in its entirety, shouldering the expenses therefor, that did not make him the owner of all of it. In other words, it did not put to end the existing state of co-ownership. Necessary expenses may be incurred by one co-owner, subject to his right to collect reimbursement from the remaining co-owners. There is no doubt that redemption of property entails a necessary expense. Under the Civil Code: 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. Any one 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