Vicenta Ortiz De Pardell vs Gaspar De Bartolome and Matilde Ortiz De Bartolome

Background of the Case:

Plaintiff Vicenta and Defendant Matilde are sisters born to the spouses Miguel Ortiz, who
has died and was soon to be followed by his wife Calixta Felin. Prior to Calixta’s death,
she executed a nuncupative will where she made her four children, Manuel, Francisca,
Vicenta and Matilde, her sole and universal heirs. Manuel and Francisca died leaving no
heirs.
The properties included in the will consists of two houses (La Quinta and Calle Escolta)
and a number of parcels of lands. Vicenta and her husband went to Spain leaving Matilde
and her husband Gaspar to assume administration of the properties co-owned. Vicenta
now has returned and asked her sister to deliver her share of the property but despite
repeated demands, defendants failed to perform, Plaintiff now sues her sister for the
recovery her share in the properties and the profits generated by it.
Nature: Action for recovery, instituted by Vicente Ortiz, of one-half of the total in cash of
the undivided property co-owned by the sisters, Vicenta and Matilde; or to recognize
Vicente to be vested with full and absolute right of ownership to the said undivided one-
half of the properties co-owned.
Facts:
Defendant’s Defense:
 In response to the suit, counsel for defendants alleged that the spouses never
refused to divide the said property, and that they have delivered profits collected
from the properties to the plaintiffs.
 They also alleged that they spent expenses on the repairs of one of the houses
because of an earthquake. However, the expenses were more than the rents
collected resulting to a deficit and demanded that as co-owners, she pay her share in
the deficit.
 Furthermore, Gaspar, who assumed the role of administrator of the properties,
demand that he be paid compensation.
Plaintiff’s Defense:
 Plaintiffs asks the court to render judgment sentencing the defendants to restore and
deliver the exact one-half of the total value of the properties and prayed for damages
with legal interest with regard the rents gained by the properties.
Trial Court: Ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to acquire La Quinta, and the defendants,
Escolta. After the valuation determined by the expert appraiser.
The court also held that the revenues and the expenses were compensated by the
residence of the defendant that no damages were either caused or suffered. Therefore
absolving the defendants to pay damages.

Defendants Response (Counter Claim)to the Trial Court Ruling:

 The properties retained by the defendants were higher of value (P9,310) as
compared to the properties retained by the plaintiffs (P2,885), therefore the
defendants had to pay the difference (P3,212) after deducting the amount which the
plaintiffs were obliged to deliver as one-half of the price of the properties retained by
the defendants.
 Counsel maintains that the amount spent for the expenses spent on the repairs
should be deducted from the sum to be delivered by the respondents.
 Counsel asked to move for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence presented
(expenses for the repairs and the revenue generated by the properties) were ignored
by the Trial Judge.
Issue:
1. WON the plaintiffs should be indemnified for the losses and damages comprised by
rents generated by the property.
2. WON the defendants were entitled to be reimbursed WITH INTERESTS the
expenses spent for the repairs on the House Calle Escolta because of the
earthquake and the to pay for the losses incurred due to the deficit in profit.
3. WON the defendant husband-administrator should be compensated for his work.
Held:
1. No and Yes
a. No rent from the upper floor of House Calle Escolta
b. Yes half-rent from the lower floor of House Calle Escolta
2. Yes
3. No
Ratio:
1. Rents
a. Upper Floor: Defendant as co-owner was entitled to reside in the first floor.
Article 394 of the Civil Code provides that each co-owner may use the things
owned in common in such a manner as to not injure the interests or prevent the
other owners from utilizing them according to their rights.
i. The upper floor was designed for dwelling, and the record shows no proof
that defendants caused any injury to the detriment of the community
property or prevent her sister from utilizing the same. Each co-owner of
 realty held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the whole property and
may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation.
b. Lower Floor: Stores of the lower floor were rented an accounting of the rents
were duly made to the plaintifs.
i. Gaspar, a justice of the peace, for 4 years, occupied a room on the lower
floor as an office. He is to pay rents, but only one-half of the monthly rent
the quarters could have produced.
1. He had no right to freely use the room, because it would be a
detriment to the plaintiffs who would not receive the would be one-
half share in the rent produced by the occupation of the room used
by Gaspar.
2. Reimbursement of expenses for the rehabilitation of the Calle Escolta House
because of an earthquake
a. The trial judge ignored the evidence that showed the expenses incurred by the
defendants for the repairs on the house and the fact that the collected rents
were not enough to cover the expenses resulting to a deficit.
i. Plaintiff should pay her sister one-half amount of the expenses for the
repairs since the building was valued higher (P9000 instead of P6000).
ii. The counterclaim was also proper, however the award to the defendants
should be deducted by the amount of rent to be paid by Administrator
Gaspar as rent.
b. Interest on the amount demanded by defendants for repairs
i. Plaintiffs cannot be compelled to pay legal interest on the date of demand
by defendants, but only the interest fixed by law from the date of
judgment.
3. Compensation as an administrator of the properties.
a. Gaspar is not entitled to any payment. He is merely entitled to reimbursement
for the actual and necessary expenses incurred by him and indemnity for
damages he may have suffered.
i. It was his duty to care for and preserve the said property half which
belonged to his wife, and in exchange for that, he with his wife resided in
the upper story of the said property without payment of rents.