You are on page 1of 2

ART 486

G.R. No. L-4656 November 18, 1912
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?
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.
ART 487

SERING v. PLAZO- Action for Ejectment

Anyone of the co-owners of an immovable may bring an action in ejectment.

Sering won an ejectment suit against Spouses Plazo and Suan. On appeal with the CFI, respondents
learned that Sering is not the sole owner of the property and they moved to implead the other coowners because they think that they are indispensable parties to the case. Court granted and ordered
Sering to amend complaint.
Due to the failure of the petitioner to amend the complaint, the case was dismissed.

Whether the other co-owners are indispensable to the ejecment case

No, according to Art 478 Anyone of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment (whether the
action is forcible entry or unlawful detainer). The matter to be determined is the prior physical
possession of the plaintiff which was correctly alleged.