Court Supreme Court First Division

Citation G.R. No. 4656

Date November 18, 1912
Plaintiff-appellees Ricardo Pardell y Cruz and Vicenta Ortiz y Felin De Pardell
Defendant-appellants Gaspar de Bartolome y Escribano and Matilde Otiz y Felin de Bartolome
Ponente Justice Torres
Relevant Topic Rights of co-owners
Prepared by Soriano, Hilary Holly C.

CASE SUMMARY
Vicenta (plaintiff) and Matilde (defendant) are the only living heirs of Sps. Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin y Paula, who both
passed away. The spouses left properties in Vigan which were undivided. While Vicenta and her husband was in Spain,
Matilde resided in one of the properties with her husband, and administered the properties without any judicial
authorization or extrajudicial agreement. Vicenta sued Matilde and her husband in order to recover ½ of the total value of
the fruits and rents derived from the properties, plus losses and damages incurred (since Vicenta and his husband lived
on the 2nd floor of one of the properties). Vicenta counterclaimed that they should also be paid for the repair of one of the
houses since it was destroyed during an earthquake, and that her husband Gaspar must be remunerated for
administering the properties. The main issue decided by the Court was w/n Matilde was required to pay rent for the use of
the 2nd floor of one of the houses. The Court ruled no, because she was co-owner of said undivided properties, and had
rights to use and enjoy the property subject to the only limitation that she must not injure the rights of the other co-owner
(Vicenta) from enjoying the same.

FACTS
 Sps. Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin y Paula, upon their death on 1875 and 1882, left several properties undivided
to the only 2 living heirs: Vicenta (plaintiff) and Matilde (defendant).
1. House of strong material, lot (Escalante Street) 6,000
2. House of mixed material, lot (Washington Street) 1,500
3. Lot on Magallanes Street 100
4. Parcel of rice land in San Julian 60
5. Parcel of rice land in Sta Lucia 86
6. 3 parcels of land in Candon 150
TOTAL 7,896
 On 1888, Matilde and her husband Gaspar administered and enjoyed the said properties and lived on the second
floor of the house on Calle Escota, and collected the rents and fruits derived from the properties. During this time,
Vicenta was in Spain with her husband.
 Vicenta filed a suit against Matilde and husband asking that:
o Matilde and Gaspar be ordered to restore and deliver the ½ value in cash, according to appraisal, of the
undivided property (~ P3,498); or
o Vicenta be given full and absolute right of ownership to the ½ of the undivided properties; and
o Indemnity of Php 8,000 as losses and damages + costs of the suit
 Matilde answered and filed a counterclaim:
o She never refused to divide the property with Vicenta, and that she was willing to deliver ½ of the value of
the undivided property (~P3,498)
o Their mother had jewelry which was also undivided, which is currently in the possession of Vicenta
 Losada gold chronometer watch, with a chain in the form of a bridle curb, and a watch charm
consisting of the engraving of a postage stamp on a stone mounted in gold and bearing the
initials M.O.
 Pair of cuff buttons made of gold coins
 Four small gold buttons
 Two finger rings, one with initials M.O.
 Gold bracelet
o 1886 to 1901the following were collected from the properties:
 Calle Escolta (P 288) – remitted to Vicenta in 1891
 Calle Washington, La Quinta (P 990.95) –
 Total of P1,278.95
o Spent the following on the properties:
 765.38 was spent on the house on Calle Escolta
 376.33 was sepnt on La Quinta
 Total of P1,141.70
 o 1897 – spent P5,091.52 (out of their personal pocket) for the repair of the house on Calle Escolta due to
the earthquake, was finished on 1903
o All collections made until August 1, 1905 only totaled P3,654.15; while the expenses were P6,252.32
o In short, they wanted – payment for the repair of the house, remuneration to Gaspar for the
administration of the properties with payment of legal interest from Dec. 7 1904 (date when the accounts
were rendered)
 Dec. 28 1905 – Court ruled:
o Plaintiffs were entitled to acquire the building of La Quinta, the lot and the warehouses and other
improvements within the land; the seed lands in Vigan and Santa Lucia;
o Defendants were entitled to acquire the house on Calle Escolta, the lot in Calle Magallanes and the
three parcels of land in Candon

ISSUE 1 HELD
W/N Matilde and Gaspar are liable to pay rent (loss and damages) to Vicenta? NO
 Trial court hard adjudged that Vicenta and Matilde are co-owners
 Matilde merely excercised her right as co-owner of the properties
 With regards to joint ownership, Art. 394 of the Civil Code states that
o Each co-owner may use the things owned in common, provided he uses them in accordance with their
object and in such manner as not to injure the interests of the community nor prevent the co-owners
from utilizing them according to their rights.
o Matilde occupied the upper story designed for use as dwelling
o No proof that by doing so, Matilde caused detriment to the interests of the co-owner Vicenta, nor
did she prevent Vicenta from utilizing the second floor of the house according to her rights
 Delays in the collection and remission of rents was understandable because at that time, there was nsurrection,
the country was in a turmoil
 However, with regards to Gasper using a part of the lower floor as office as justice of the peace for four
years, he has liability to pay ½ of the total rent, which is P384. (basis = monthly rental is P16)
o Loss of rental income if the space would have been rented to strangers
o Husband had no right to occupy the space gratuitously

ISSUE 2 HELD
W/N Vicenta must pay Matilde ½ of the total cost of the repair of the house in Calle Escolta? YES
W/N legal interest must be collected From Dec. 7 1904? NO
 Because of the earthquake, Matilde had expended P6,252.32, as proven by evidence
 The rents produced during that time were only P3,654.15, which means that Matilde cashed out P2,598.17
personally.
 It is lawful and just that Vicenta pay for ½ of the added cost of the repair, which is P2,598.17 / 2 = P1,299.08;
especially since the appraised value of the house after the repair rose to P9,000.
 Deducting P384 from the P1,299.08 as payment of Gaspar for the use of the lower floor, Vicenta is now liable to
pay Matilde P915.08.
 However, this must not bear legal interest because the suit has not reached finality yet.
 In order that there be an obligation to pay legal interest, it must be declared in a judicial decision from what date
the interest will be due on the principal concerned in the suit.

ISSUE 3 HELD
W/N Gaspar, husband of Matilde, is entitled for remuneration for administering the properties? NO
 He administered it on his own accord and as an officious manager (voluntary)
 The law does not allow him any compensation as such voluntary administrator other than reimbursement for
actual and necessary expenditures + indemnity for the damages he may have suffered acting in such capacity

ISSUE 4 HELD
W/N the jewelry in possession of Vicenta is part of the undivided property? NO
 Record of the trial court proceedings does not show that the allegations made by Vicenta is not true, that the
deceased mother disposed of this jewelry during her lifetime
 The will made by the mother would have included the jewelry if that was the case
 There is no reason and evidence proving that the gift from mother to Vicenta was not made

ISSUE 5 HELD
W/N the parties may collect the sum of P910.50 which is the difference between the assessed value NO
of the properties and their price after appraisal?
  Both parties agreed to an amicable division of the undivided properties according to the fixed price by the judicial
expert who appraised the same
 It is improper now to claim a right to the collection of the sum for the reason that the increase in price
redounded to the benefit of both parties

RULING
 Partial reversal of the judgment appealed from
o Plaintiffs Vicenta and husband to pay defendants P915.08 as balance of sum claimed by plaintiffs for the
reconstruction of the house on Calle Escolta less the rental fee of Gaspar for using a part of the lower
level as his office
o Matilde and husband are not required to pay rent in occupying the second floor of the house in Calle
Escolta
o Plaintiffs cannot be compelled to pay legal interest on the amount to be paid to Matilde and husband
o Husband Gaspar is not entitled to any remuneration as voluntary administrator of the properties
o Defendants are not entitled to collect the difference between the assessed valuation and appraisal by
judicial experts
o The jewelry in the possession of Vicenta shall not be partitioned.
 No special findings as to costs.