MODULE 6 TORES JR. v.
LAPINID
RIGHTS OF A CO-OWNER AND ITS LIMITATIONS
EXTENT OF THE RIGHT OF A CO-OWNER
A co-owner is an owner not only to the part that
pertains to him but also of the entire co-owned property.
Being the owner of the entire co-owned property, a co-
owner can exercise all the attributes of ownership with
respect to the entire property. In exercising his
attributes of ownership, it may conflict with the rights of
the other co-owners.
LIMITATIONS
While the co-owner has rights over the entire co-owned
property, he may use the co-owned property only:
1. For the purpose for which it is intended
2. Without prejudice to the interests of the co-
ownership and
3. Without preventing others from making use
thereof according to their own rights
Purpose for which it is intended
The co-owner should use the co-owned property in
accordance with the agreement he has with his co-
owners, if there is any.
If there is none, that use for which it is ordinarily
adapted according to its nature (e.g. house only for
living and not to be used as a factory) or use to which it
has been previously devoted.
Illustration:
There is an existing agreement regarding rental of a
commercial building. If one of the co-owners would use
a portion of the commercial building, he must pay the
appropriate rentals.
If there is no agreement as to how the property should
be used, we go by the nature of the property. A co-
owner must use a co-owned property in accordance with
the use for which that property is ordinarily adopted.
If it is an ancestral residential house, the co-owner will
use it only for residential purposes. He cannot insist to
use it or a portion thereof for commercial purposes.
Such insistence would violate the rule pertaining to the
limitations on the exercise of his right of ownership.
RIGHT TO SELL UNDIVIDED SHARE
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full
ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate,
assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another
person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights
are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be
limited to the portion, which may be allotted to him
in the division upon the termination of the co-
ownership.
!
A co-owner has an absolute ownership of his
undivided and pro-indiviso share in the co-owned
property. He has the right to alienate, assign and
mortgage it, even to the extent of substituting a third
person in its enjoyment provided that no personal
rights will be affected. This is evident from the Article
493 Civil Code.
A co-owner is an owner of the whole and over the
whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at
the same time the owner of a portion, which is truly
abstract. Hence, his co-owners have no right to
enjoin a co-owner who intends to alienate or
substitute his abstract portion or substitute a third
person in its enjoyment.
A co-owner has an absolute right to share his undivided
share even if the act of selling is an act of alteration.
ALTERATION
It is an act of an alteration because you will be causing
the transfer of ownership rights.
Rule of co-ownership regarding an act of
alteration:
• Must be concurred in by all co-owners.
• Otherwise, alteration would be illegal and would
thus be nullified.
Qualification to the rule:
• If the co-owner would sell his undivided (?) share, it
is an act of alteration.
• If the co-owner would sell his undivided share, that
is allowed by law pursuant to Article 493.
Legal effects of the sale of an undivided share:
When a co-owner effects the sale of his undivided share,
he is not selling a particular portion of the co-owned
property. He is selling only his undivided interest, which
pending partition, is something that is abstract.
The buyer of that selling co-owner, cannot insist that
what is bought is a specific portion because technically
upon entering into a contract of lease [sale] with that
co-owner, what is bought is his interest in the co-
ownership.
Therefore, the buyer needs to await the result of the
partition before he can claim a specific portion in that
co-owned property.
Validity of the sale by a co-owner:
The sale is valid even if technically the subject matter is
his interest in the co-ownership and not a specific
portion of the property.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
RIGHT TO BRING SUIT IN BEHALF OF THE OTHER
CO-OWNERS
CARANDANG v. HEIRS OF DE GUZMAN
In this connection, Article 1811 of the Civil
Code provides that:
"[a] Partner is a co-owner with the other partners of
specific partnership property."
Taken with the presumption of the conjugal nature of
the funds used to finance the four checks used to
pay for petitioners' stock subscriptions, and with the
presumption that the credits themselves are part of
conjugal funds, Article 1811 makes Quirino and
Milagros de Guzman co-owners of the alleged credit.
Being co-owners of the alleged credit, Quirino and
Milagros de Guzman may separately bring an action
for the recovery thereof. In the fairly recent cases
of Baloloy v. Hular and Adlawan v. Adlawan, we
held that, in a co-ownership, co-owners may bring
actions for the recovery of co-owned property
without the necessity of joining all the other co-
owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed
to have been filed for the benefit of his co-owners.
General Rule:
ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an
action in ejectment.
Rule in Remedial Law qualified by Civil Code
There is a rule in procedural law or remedial law that for
a case to prosper, all indispensable parties must be
impleaded.
Applying this remedial law principle, technically all the
co-owners are indispensable parties and therefore all of
them should be impleaded in the case.
If an indispensable party is not impleaded, the court
would have no jurisdiction to proceed and any judgment
that it may render without the presence of an
indispensable party would be void.
However, this is qualified by the provision of the Civil
Code in regard to the right of a co-owner in bringing a
suit for and in behalf of the co-owners. This is allowed
by the Civil Code.
Civil Code is very clear in stating that any one of the co-
owners may bring an action in ejectment. With the use
of the word “ejectment” it refers to all real actions to
recover ownership and possession of a co-owned
property. The matter about impleading an indispensable
party becomes merely a procedural matter.
!
Qualification to the rule allowing filing of suit by
one co-owner without participation of other co-
owners
ADLAWAN v. ADLAWAN
For a case to prosper, even if filed only by one co-
owner, that suing co-owner must recognize the
existence of the co-ownership. In other words, on
the face of the allegations of the complaint, it must
be clear and apparent that he is bringing it for and in
behalf of the other co-owners.
If on the face of the complaint the suing co-owner
disowns the existence of the co-ownership, he cannot
later on backtrack and say that he is bringing it for
and behalf of the co-owners for the purpose of
saving his case from eventual dismissal.
RIGHT TO BRING SUIT
RESUENA v. CA
Article 487 of the Civil Code is a categorical and an
unqualified authority in favor of respondent to evict
petitioners from the portions of Lot No. 2587. This
provision is a departure from Palarca v. Baguisi, which
held that an action for ejectment must be brought by all
the co-owners. Thus, a co-owner may bring an action to
exercise and protect the rights of all. When the action is
brought by one co-owner for the benefit of all, a
favorable decision will benefit them; but an adverse
decision cannot prejudice their rights.
Respondent's action for ejectment against petitioners is
deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all co-owners
of the property since petitioners were not able to prove
that they are authorized to occupy the same.
The General Rule under Art. 487 was applied in this case
even in the light of the objection that other co-owners
should have been impleaded because the suing co-
owner recognized the existence of the co-ownership and
such recognition was clearly inferred based on the
allegations in the complaint.
There must be recognition of the co-ownership on
the part of the suing co-owner
ADLAWAN v. ADLAWAN
Petitioner cannot validly maintain the instant action considering
that he does not recognize the co-ownership flowing from
succession to the property of his father. There is no merit in
petitioner's claim that he has the legal personality to file the
present unlawful detainer suit because it would benefit not only
him but also his alleged co-owners. However, petitioner forgets
that he filed the instant case to acquire possession of the property
and to recover damages. If granted, he alone will gain possession
of the lot and benefit from the proceeds of the award of damages
to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
 RULES ON WHO DECIDES THE FOLLOWING:
1. Acts of Preservation
2. Acts of Administration
3. Acts of Alteration
These are matters that normally confront the co-owners
while the co-ownership exists.
EXPENSES OF PRESERVATION ETC.
This is more of a responsibility of a co-owner in regard
to expenses of preservation.
Expenses of preservation are such as would be
indispensable for the continued existence of the thing.
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
Renunciation
Only leeway to a co-owner here is that if he does not
want to contribute, he may renounce so much of his
undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of
the expenses and taxes.
Renunciation must be voluntary
This matter regarding renunciation of interest in co-
ownership cannot be compelled. This is voluntary on the
part of the co-owner from whom the demand for
contribution is made.
Limitation:
Cannot execute this waiver if prejudicial to the co-
ownership.
Illustration
“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.”
• A, B, and C owners of property worth 3M.
• 1M respective interests.
• Expenses worth 500,000.
A, B, or C may renounce up to 500,000 of the share of
expenses.
Note: he cannot be required to renounce, option is upon
him.
Ang expenses nga wala niya bayari kay ideduct sa
iyahang undivided interest
!
OLD RULE
Co-owner may renounce his whole interest, and pertains
to exemption in being required to contribute to future
expenses. if irenounce niya iyang whole interest, dili na siya mo bayad
for future expenses
CRITICISM TO THE NEW RULE
When a co-owner from whom a contribution is asked
renounces, will that exempt him from claims that may be
interposed by creditors?
Example: Renunciation of a portion of interest in
co-ownership (Tolentino)
a. This is dacion en pago, subrogation, etc.
b. Since this renunciation pertains to a debt
already incurred, consent of the other co-owners
is required such as on the following matters:
valuation of the share
c. Effect on creditors (third party): Can the co-
owner exempt himself to pay his share of the
expenses to the creditor simply by renouncing
an equivalent portion of his share in the co-
ownership?
No. This cannot be done by a co-owner or cannot put
this up as a defense because this constitutes novation by
change of debtor since he will be exempting himself
from liability. Thus, the debtors now would be the
remaining co owners. This set-up requires consent of
creditor to be valid pursuant to the law on Obligations
and Contracts.
Take note of these observations.
ACT OF ADMINISTRATION
• Refers to the enjoyment of the thing and are of a
transitory character.
• Decisions pertaining to improvement or
embellishment of the thing owned in common for
the purpose of better enjoyment.
Rules:
• Can be decided by majority of the co-owners and
the majority is qualified to mean as financial
majority
• Thus, this is majority in regard to interest, not just
mere numerical majority.
ACTS OF ALTERATION
• Act by virtue of which a co-owner, in opposition to
the express agreement, if there is any, or, in default
thereof, to the tacit agreement of all the co-owners,
and violating their will, changes the thing from that
state in which the others believe it should remain or
withdraws it from the use to which they wish it to be
intended.
• Affects the substance of the thing
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
Rules:
• If the act would qualify as an act of alteration, it
must be concurred by or consented to expressly or
tacitly because this act is akin to an act of “strict”
ownership.
• If alteration is unauthorized, act is illegal. Erring co-
owner may be compelled to undo what has been
done.
• Erring co-owner shall likewise be liable for losses or
damages
Examples:
1. Sale, donation, or mortgage of the entire
property
2. Sale, donation or mortgage of a part of the
property but with definite boundaries
3. Voluntary easement
4. Lease of real property
5. Construction of a house on a lot owned in
common
6. Contracts of long duration
Sale, donation or mortgage of the entire property
Qualification:
Must be the entire property because sale of a part of a
co-owned property is valid even if the sale is an act of
alteration
Voluntary Easement
Rule:
This is an agreement to grant a right of way in favor of
neighboring lots. If the property traversed by the right of
way is co-owned, it cannot be decided by one co-owner
since this is an act of alteration.
Lease of Real Property
Must be qualified because leases of short duration (less
than one year) and those not required by the parties to
be recorded in the Registry of Property are mere acts
of administration
If the duration would exceed 1 year or if less than 1 year
but recorded in the Registry of Property then this
becomes an act of alteration, which would require the
unanimous consent of all co owners.
Construction of a house on a lot owned in
common
If you consented to this and such consent was given to
a stranger, this is an act of alteration (dili co-owner ang
ni construct).
LEASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Art. 1638. Every lease of real estate may be
recorded in the Registry of Property. Unless a lease is
recorded, it shall not be binding upon third persons.
!
1. When lease is recorded with the Registry of
Property, it becomes alteration (it is not a mere act
of administration)
Art. 1878 (8). To lease any real property to another
person for more than one year
2. Lease of immovable property: mere majority cannot
lease real property for more than one year.
EFFECT OF AN ILLEGAL ALTERATION
1. Co-owner will lose what he has spent
2. Demolition can be compelled
3. Liability for loss and damages
4. Whatever benefits belong to the co-ownership
If there is an alteration not concurred in or consented to
by all co-owners, even if benefits redound to the co-
ownership, the co-owner cannot ask for reimbursement
Principles:
1. Mere tolerance on the part of the co-owners
cannot legalize the change in the use of a thing
from that intended by the parties
2. No prejudice to co-ownership: if co-owners
agreed to lease, co-owners cannot use without
paying rent
An act of alteration includes alteration of the substance
of the thing. Thus, when one co-owner alters the use of
a thing from that intended by the parties, if there is no
immediate objection from the co-owners, it should not
be outrightly interpreted to mean that there was consent
on the part of the co-owners. Take note of Principle 1.
CASES ON RIGHT OF A CO-OWNER (ALTERATION)
Giving consent to a third person to possess a co-
owned property is an act of alteration
CRUZ v. CATAPANG
As to the issue of whether or not the consent of one
co-owner will warrant the dismissal of a forcible entry
case filed by another co-owner against the person
who was given the consent to construct a house on
the co-owned property, we have held that a co-
owner cannot devote common property to his or her
exclusive use to the prejudice of the co-ownership. In
our view, a co-owner cannot give valid consent to
another to build a house on the co-owned property,
which is an act tantamount to devoting the property
to his or her exclusive use.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
This involved a co-owner who gave consent to a third
person to possess a co-owned property. When this was
discovered by the co-owners, they filed a case for
ejectment against this third person. The third person put
up as a defense that his entry into the premises was not
attributable to any force, intimidation, strategy, stealth
that are the grounds for which one would file a case for
forcible entry.
The SC ruled there was a valid cause of action for
forcible entry, even in spite of the existence of the
consent given by that one co-owner. This act of giving
consent to possess a co-owned property, which consent
is given only by one of the co-owners is an act of
alteration. Thus, this is not valid because an act of
alteration must be agreed and concurred in unanimously
by all the other co-owners. Thus, no valid defense for
the suit for forcible entry and the SC characterized this
as a form of entry by strategy.
Unauthorized Sale v. Purchaser in Good Faith
SPS. CRUZ v. LEIS
It is conceded that, as a rule, a co-owner such as
Gertrudes could only dispose of her share in the
property owned in common. Unfortunately for private
respondents, however, the property was registered in
TCT No. 43100 solely in the name of “Gertrudes
Isidto, widow.” Where a parcel of land, forming part
of the undistributed properties of the dissolved
conjugal partnership of gains is sold by a widow to a
purchaser who merely relied on the face of the
certificate of title thereto, issued solely in the name
of the widow, the purchaser acquires a valid title to
the land even as against the heirs of the deceased
spouse. The rationale for this rule is that “a person
dealing with registered land is not required to go
behind the register to deal with the condition of the
property.”
This involved an unauthorized sale of the entire property
by one co-owner.
General Rule:
(Unauthorized Sale)
[While a co-owner can validly sell is undivided sale]
when a sale made by one co-owner pertains to the
entire co-owned property, it is invalid because it exceeds
the portion pertaining to the selling co-owner. It is valid
only insofar as his interest is concerned.
Exception:
(Purchaser in Good faith)
Here, the SC validated the sale of the entire co-owned
property since there is a peculiarity ITCAB.
!
While this was a co-owned property, the certificate of
title only indicated the name of the selling co-owner. A
buyer who relies on the face of the certificate of title
indicating only the name of the widow who is
supposedly only a co-owner and the buyer relied in good
faith on what appears on the certificate of title, a
purchaser acquires a valid title of the land even as
against the heirs of the deceased spouse. The buyer’s
title is valid not only to the share pertaining to the
widow, but the entire co-owned property [including
shares of the other co-owners who are heirs of the
deceased spouse].
Sale of Entire Portion
SEGURA v. SEGURA
When Amojido secured the registration of the land in
his name following the deed of sale executed in his
favor by the parties to the extrajudicial partition, his
certificate of title carried an express reservation of
whatever rights might pertain to other heirs. This
annotation constituted an acknowledgment of the
possibility that a portion of the land might not belong
to him and the commitment that he would be holding
such part as impliedly conveyed to him in trust by
and for its true owners. However, when Amojido
himself sold the land to Mirope Mascareñas vda. De
Elison on March 13, 1953, the transfer certificate of
title issued in her name no longer carried the said
encumbrance. By deletion of this annotation, Mirope,
as the new transferee, repudiated as of the date of
registration, the claim of the other heirs to their
shares in the property.
This is an exception to the rule that the sale of an entire
co-owned property is not valid if the one selling is only
one co-owner or the sale is not done by all co-owners.
SC upheld the right of an innocent purchaser who
merely relied on the face of the title as against the other
co-owners who did not consent to the sale.
RIGHT OVER THE IDEAL SHARE
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full
ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate,
assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another
person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights
are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be
limited to the portion, which may be allotted to him
in the division upon the termination of the co-
ownership.
Sale by a co-owner of his undivided share/interest is a
valid transaction.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
 EFFECT OF SALE BY A CO-OWNER
PAULMITAN v. CA
From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since a
co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale
of the entire property by one co-owner without the
consent of the other co-owners is not null and void
[with respect to the rights of the selling co-owner].
However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller are
transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of
the property.
It is valid with respect to rights of the selling co-owner
but it is void with respect to the rights of the non-
consenting co-owners.
Right of a co-owner whose interest in the co-
ownership was sold without authority
SANCHEZ v. CA
Although assigned an aliquot but abstract part of the
property, the metes and bounds of petitioner’s lot
has not been designated. As she was not a party to
the Deed of Absolute Sale voluntarily entered into by
the other co-owners, her right to 1/6 of the property
must be respected. Partition needs to be effected to
protect her right to her definite share and determine
the boundaries of her property. Such partition must
be done without prejudice to the rights of private
respondent Virginia Teria as buyer of the 5/6 portion
of the lot under dispute.
If you did not consent to the sale, your share is not
affected in the sale made by your other co-owners.
EFFECT OF AN UNAUTHORIZED ACT OF
ALTERATION
NUFABLE v. NUFABLE
Well-entrenched is the rule that a co-owner can only
alienate his pro indiviso share in the co-owned property.
Article 493 of the CC spells out the rights of co-owners
over a co-owned property. Pursuant to said Article, a
co-owner shall have full ownership of his part and of the
fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. He has the right
to alienate, assign of mortgage it and even substitute
another person in its enjoyment. As a mere part owner,
he cannot alienate the shares of the other co-owners.
The prohibition is premised on the elementary rule that
“no one can give what he does not have.” Moreover,
respondents stipulated that they were not aware of the
mortgage by petitioners of the subject property. This
being the case, a co-owner does not lose his part
ownership of a co-owned property when his share is
mortgaged by another co-owner without the former’s
knowledge and consent as in the case at bar. It has
likewise been ruled that the mortgage of the inherited
property is not binding against co-heirs who never
! benefited.
A co-owner does not lose his right to the part ownership
of a co-owned property when a share is mortgaged by
another co-owner if there is no knowledge much less
consent on his part.
Trust relationship is established
NUFABLE v. NUFABLE
When the subject property was mortgaged by Angel
Custodio, he had no right to mortgage the entire
property but only with respect to his ¼ pro indiviso
share as the property was subject to the successional
rights of the other heirs of the late Esdras. In case of
foreclosure, a sale would result in the transmission of
title to the buyer, which is feasible only if the seller can
be in a position to convey ownership of the things sold.
And in one case, it was held that a foreclosure would be
ineffective, unless the mortgagor has title to the
property to be foreclosed. Therefore, as regards the
remaining ¾ pro indiviso share, the same was held in
trust for the party rightfully entitled thereto, who are
the private respondents herein. Pursuant to Article 1451
of the Civil Code, when land passes by succession to
any person and he causes the legal title to be put in the
name of another, a trust is established by implication of
law for the benefit of the true owner. Likewise; under
1456 of the same Code, if property is acquired through
mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of
law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the
benefit of the person from whom the property comes.
When a sale or dispossession is made by one co-owner
without the consent of the others, the shares pertaining
to those who did not consent are technically held in trust
by this selling co-owner. There can be no valid transfer
with respect to those shares of the non-consenting co-
owners.
To sum it up, an act of alteration like sale or mortgage
etc. that are denominated as acts of strict ownership
can only be effected legally if there is consent by
all co-owners. Absent the concurrence or unanimous
consent of all co-owners, such act of alteration is invalid.
SALE OF A CO-OWNED PROPERTY (CASES)
DEL BANCO v. IAC
A co-owner cannot, without the conformity of the other
co-owners or a judicial decree of partition issued
pursuant to the provision of Rule 69 of the Rules of
Court, adjudicate to himself in fee simple a determinate
portion of the lot owned in common, as his share
therein, to the exclusion of other co-owners. It is a basic
principle in the law of co-ownership both under the
present Civil Code as in the Code of 1889 that no
individual co-owner can claim any definite portion
thereof. It is therefore of no moment that some of the
co-owners have succeeded in securing cadastral titles in
their names to some portions of the Island occupied by
them.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
This is an affirmation of the principle that pending
partition, what the co-owner has is only abstract or ideal
share. Some authors would refer to it as the spiritual
share pertaining to the co-owner. That being the case,
no individual co-owner can claim any definite portion of
the co-owned property.
Sale of a specific portion prior to partition is an
act of alteration and must be consented by all co-
owners
CABRERA v. YSAAC
The undivided interest of a co-owner is also referred to
as “the ideal or abstract quota” or “proportionate
share.” OTOH, the definite portion of the land refers to
specific metes and bounds of a co-owned property. To
illustrate, if a ten-hectare property is owned equally by
10 co-owners, the undivided interest of a co-owner here
is one hectare. The definite portion of that interest is
usually determined during judicial or extrajudicial
partition. After partition, a definite portion of the
property held in common is allocated to a specific co-
owner. The co-ownership is dissolved and, in effect,
each of the former co-owners is free to exercise
autonomously the rights attached to his or her
ownership over the definite portion of the land. It is
crucial that the co-owners agree to which portion of the
land goes to whom.
Hence, prior to partition, a sale of a definite portion of
common property requires the consent of all co-owners
because it operates to partition the land with respect to
the co-owner selling his or her share. The co-owner or
seller is already marking which portion should redound
to his or her autonomous ownership upon future
partition.
If there is no partition of the co-owned property, any
attempted sale by a co-owner of a specific portion is an
act of alteration. For it to be a valid sale of a specific
portion, the other co-owners must consent. Otherwise,
the sale would only be deemed as sale of a pro-indiviso
(undivided) share. The sale is valid only that it cannot
refer to a specific portion if there is no partition yet. Or,
if the pointing out of that specific portion is not
consented to by the other co-owners.
Valid Sale of the Entire Portion because there was
de facto or factual partition
PAMPLONA v. MORETO
The title may be pro-indiviso or inchoate but the
moment the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location
and even indicated the boundaries over which the
fences were to be erected without object, protest or
complaint by the other co-owners, on the contrary they
acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation
and possession. We rule that a factual partition or
termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was
created, and barred not only the vendor but also his
heirs, private respondents herein from asserting as
against the vendees petitioners any right or title in
! derogation of the deed of sale by vendor Moreto.
Effect of a sale made by a co-owner
SPS. DEL CAMPO v. CA
Based on the principle that “no one can give what he
does not have,” Salome, Consorcia and Alfredo could
not legally sell the shares pertaining to Soledad since a
co-owner cannot alienate more than his share in the co-
ownership. We have ruled many times that even if a co-
owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will
affect only his own share but not those of the other co-
owners who did not consent to the sale. Since a co-
owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of
the entire property by one co-owner will only transfer
the rights of said co-owner to the buyer, thereby
making the buyer a co-owner of the property.
If the co-owner sells the property as his, the sale is not
necessarily invalid but its effect is only with regard to his share
and would not adversely effect the other co-owners who did
not consent to the sale.
Sale of non-consenting co-owner will not be
affected
TORRES, JR. v. LAPINID
Be that as it may, the compromise agreement failed to
defeat the already accrued right of ownership of Lapinid
over the share sold by Jesus. As early as 9 November
1997, Lapinid already became a co-owner of the property
and thus, vested with all the rights enjoyed by the other
co-owners. The judgment based on the compromise
agreement, which is to have the covered properties sold, is
valid and effectual provided, as it does not affect the
proportionate share of the non-consenting party.
Accordingly, when the compromise agreement was
executed without Lapinid’s consent, said agreement could
not have affected his ideal and undivided share. Petitioners
cannot sell Lapinid’s share absent his consent. Nemo dat
quod non habet—“no one can give what he does not
have.”
With respect to the shares pertaining to those who did not
consent, such shares would not be adversely affected.
REMEDY WHEN A CO-OWNER WITHHOLDS HIS
CONSENT TO THE SALE OF THE ENTIRE
PROPERTY
ARAMBULO v. NOLASCO
That a sale constitutes an alteration as mentioned in Article
491 is an established jurisprudence. It is settled that
alterations include any act of strict dominion or ownership
and any encumbrance or disposition has been held
implicitly to be an act of alteration. Alienation of the thing
by sale of the property is an act of strict dominion.
However, the ruling that alienation is alteration does not
mean that a sale commonly of commonly owned real
property is covered by the second paragraph of Article 491,
such that if a co-owner withholds consent to the sale, the
courts, upon a showing of a clear prejudice to the common
interest, may, mas adequate relief, order the grant of the
withheld consent. Such is the conclusion drawn by the trial
court, and hinted at, if not relied upon, by the appellate
court.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
Selling of the entire co-owned property as repeatedly
mentioned is an act of alteration. Being such, this must
be consented to by all co-owners.
The situation in this case was that almost all co-owners
agreed to sell the co-owned property except for one.
Considering that it is a sale of the entire co-owned
property, the sale would not be valid if there is only
even one who would object to the sale.
The consenting co-owners sought the relief of
compelling the other co-owner to give his consent.
SC said you cannot compel a co-owner to give his
consent and you cannot justify this relief by saying that
such withholding of consent is prejudicial to the co-
ownership.
Remedies provided for by the SC ITAB:
• Partition by sale
o The right to demand partition is a right
pertaining to a co-owner. In cases where it
would be impracticable to make an actual
division of a co-owned property such as when
the property is so small in area, the remedy to
be resorted to is:
• Partition by selling the entire co-owned property and
there would be a division of the proceeds of the
sale.
Take note of the suggested remedies of the SC here.
ARAMBULO v. NOLASCO
Petitioners who project themselves as
prejudiced co-owners may bring a suit for
partition, which is one of the modes of
extinguishing co-ownership. Article 494 of the Civil
Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to
remain in the co-ownership, and that each co-owner
may demand at any time partition of the thing owned
in common insofar as his share is concerned.
Corollary to this rule, Article 498 of the Civil Code
states that whenever the thing is essentially
indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be
allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the
others, it shall be sold and its proceeds accordingly
distributed. This is resorted to (a) when the right to
partition the property is invoked by any of the co-
owners but because of the nature of the property, it
cannot be subdivided or its subdivision would
prejudice the interests of the co-owners, and (b) the
co-owners are not in agreement as to who among
them shall be allotted or assigned the entire property
upon proper reimbursement of the co-owners. This is
the result obviously aimed at by petitioners at the
outset. As already shown, this cannot be done while
the co-ownership exists.
!
Take note of the underlined text. This is the correct
remedy that should have been resorted to rather than
asking the court to compel the non-consenting co-owner
to give his consent.
Mortgage by a Spouse
HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK v. DAILO
The basic and established fact is that during his lifetime,
without the knowledge and consent of his wife, Marcelino
Dailo, Jr. constituted a real estate mortgage on the subject
property, which formed part of their conjugal partnership.
By express provision of Article 124 of the Family
Code, in the absence of (court) authority or written
consent of the other spouse, any disposition or
encumbrance of the conjugal property shall be void.
The aforequoted provision does not qualify with respect to
the share of the spouse who makes the disposition or
encumbrance in the same manner that the rule on co-
ownership under Article 493 of the Civil Code does. Where
the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish.
Thus, both the trial court and the appellate court are
correct in declaring the nullity of the real estate mortgage
on the subject property for lack of respondent's consent.
The husband and wife relationship is peculiar. This is not
governed by rules on co-ownership.
In co-ownership, if you are co-owner, you are owner of
the part as well as the whole. Being the owner of the
part, you can sell, lease, mortgage etc., your undivided
share
With respect to spouses, they are not technically co-
owners as would warrant the execution by one spouse
without the consent of the other of any contracts as
ITCAB.
This case involves a mortgage made by one spouse
without the consent of the other. This matter is primarily
governed by the Family Code rather than rules of co-
ownership.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
In your family code, no act of encumbrance, disposition
can be validly made by one spouse without the consent
of the other spouse. In fact, any disposition or
encumbrance, which would affect the conjugal property,
shall be deemed void.
TERMINATION OF CO-OWNERSHIP
ART. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in
the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at
any time the partition of the thing owned in common,
insofar as his share is concerned.
The law frowns upon the perpetual state of co-
ownership.
GENERAL RULE:
It is the right of the co-owner to ask for partition
anytime of the thing owned in common insofar as his
share is concerned.
How partition may be effected
1. Extrajudicial partition – presupposes that the co-
owners will agree among themselves without
the intervention of the court and voluntarily
divide the property among themselves
2. Judicial partition - there is a specific provision in
the ROC relating to partition.
While it is the right of the co-owner to ask for partition
anytime, there are exceptions. If these exceptions apply,
they may pose a legal impediment for the demand of
partition.
EXCEPTIONS:
ART. 494. (Paragraphs 2-4)
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing
undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding
ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended
by new agreement.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a
period, which shall not exceed twenty years.
Neither shall there be any partition when it is
prohibited by law.
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-
heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
!
Agreement
An agreement is a valid mode of putting the thing in a
state of co-ownership for the meantime. If one of the
parties would ask for partition and there is this
agreement, which still exists, the other co-owners may
validly refuse the partition.
The co-owner who demands partition cannot be granted
the relief sought in view of the existence of this
agreement.
Take note: if there is an agreement, there is a specific
duration for its validity. It must not exceed 10 years
although it may be extended by another agreement not
exceeding 10 years as well.
Prohibition imposed by donor/testator
A donor can expressly stipulate in the deed of donation
that the thing donated shall not be partitioned. If there
are such stipulations, any demands relating to partition
will not prosper. Same thing will apply if a testator of the
last will and testament imposes a prohibition to partition.
However, there is a time limitation for the effectivity of
this prohibition.
Time limit for the effectivity of the prohibition:
Any period imposed pursuant to a deed of donation or
last will and testament shall not exceed twenty years.
Partition is prohibited by law
An example is a case of a conjugal partnership of
property or absolute community. During the existence of
the marriage, the husband or wife cannot ask for
partition.
Prescription
It is not only through partition that co-ownership may be
terminated. Prescription may either be in favor of a co-
owner or co-heir under certain circumstances or in favor
of a third person.
OTHER CAUSES (TERMINATING CO-OWNERSHIP)
1. Merger (when one co-owner buys out the shares
of the other co-owners, he becomes the sole
and absolute owner of the thing)
2. Prescription in favor of 3rd person or to a co-
owner
3. Destruction of the thing or loss of the right
which is owned in common
4. Partition
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
Redemption by co-owner does not terminate co-
ownership
PAULMITAN v. CA
The redemption of the land made by Fansesa did not
terminate the co-ownership nor give her title to the entire
land subject of the co-ownership. While the records show
that 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. There is no doubt that
redemption of property entails a necessary expense.
An inherited property was mortgaged to a bank to
secure the procurement of a loan but the loan was
unpaid which caused the bank to foreclose the property.
Upon foreclosure, the mortgagor still has one year from
the date of the recording of the certificate of sale issued
as a result of the foreclosure to redeem the property.
During this one-year period, it was only one among the
several heirs who redeemed the property.
SC in this case held that redemption by a co-owner does
not terminate co-ownership.
What you have is the right to ask for reimbursement
form the other co-owners. However, the singular act of
redemption does not make you the absolute owner of
the property.
ADILLE v. HON. OF CA
While a vendee a retro, under Article 1613 of the Code,
"may not be compelled to consent to a partial redemption,"
the redemption by one co-heir or co-owner of the property
in its totality does not vest in him ownership over it. Failure
on the part of all the co-owners to redeem it entitles the
vendee a retro to retain the property and consolidate title
thereto in his name. But the provision does not give to the
redeeming co-owner the right to the entire property. It
does not provide for a mode of terminating a co-
ownership.
Redemption would not give rise to exclusive
ownership
ADILLE v. HON. OF CA
We find that the CA misappreciated Margarita's testimony
that the respondents are entitled to the entire property
because they redeemed or paid the bank loan. The failure
of the other heirs to reimburse the amounts advanced by
the respondents in payment of the loan did not entitle the
latter to claim full ownership of the co-owned property. It
only gave them the right to claim reimbursement for the
amounts they advanced in behalf of the co-ownership. The
respondents' advance payments are in the nature of
necessary expenses for the preservation of the co-
ownership. Article 488 of the Civil Code provides that
necessary expenses may be incurred by one co-owner,
subject to his right to collect reimbursement from the
remaining co-owners. Until reimbursed, the respondents
hold a lien upon the subject property for the amount they
advanced.
!
RIGHT OF LEGAL REDEMPTION
ART. 1619. Legal redemption is the right to be
subrogated, upon the same terms and conditions
stipulated in the contract, in the place of one who
acquires a thing by purchase or dation in payment, or
by any other transaction whereby ownership is
transmitted by onerous title. (1521a)
ART. 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the
right of redemption in case the shares of all the other
co-owners or of any of them, are sold to a third
person. If the price of the alienation is grossly
excessive, the redemption shall pay only a
reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the
right of redemption, they may only do so in
proportion to the share they may respectively have in
the thing owned in common.
ART. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or
redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty
days from the notice in writing by the prospective
vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The
deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of
Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the
vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all
possible redemptioners.
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that
of adjoining owners.
Not a case of redemption
TAN v. CA
The records show that when the petitioner purchased
the disputed property on August 30, 1974, any co-
ownership among the brothers and sisters no longer
existed. The period to redeem had expired more than
one year earlier, on July 6, 1973. The respondent
China Bank consolidated its ownership and a new
title was issued in the bank's name. When the heirs
allowed the one-year redemption period to expire
without redeeming their parents' former property and
permitted the consolidation of ownership and the
issuance of a new title, the co-ownership was
extinguished. The challenged ruling of the
respondent court is, therefore, based on erroneous
premises.
Distinguished from other cases where the redemption of
one co-owner would not entitle him to assert ownership
of the entire co-owned property.
Here, at the time that this supposed co-owner purchase
the property from the bank, the period of redemption
has already expired.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
As earlier mentioned the mortgagor will be given 1 year
from the time the date of registration to redeem. If no
redemption was made within that period then the
mortgagee would consolidate its ownership and a new
title will be issued in its name.
However, ITCAB, one of the former co-owners bought
back the property at the time that the bank already
consolidated its ownership over the property.
Is this act of buying the property using his own money
give him sole and exclusive ownership?
YES. Upon consolidation of ownership by the bank,
there was no more co-ownership to speak of.
Technically, at the time of purchase by the co-owner, he
was doing it in his personal capacity and no longer in
behalf of the co-owners, absent the property relation of
co-ownership.
The principle in the previous cases did not find
application in instances as ITCAB.
An act equivalent to demand for partition
AGUILAR v. CA
In fairness to petitioner, respondent should pay a
rental of P1,200.00 per month, with legal interest
from the time the trial court ordered him to vacate,
for the use and enjoyment of the other half of the
property appertaining to petitioner. When petitioner
filed an action to compel the sale of the property and
the trial court granted the petition and ordered the
ejectment of respondent, the co-ownership was
deemed terminated and the right to enjoy the
possession jointly also ceased. Thereafter, the
continued stay of respondent and his family in the
house prejudiced the interest of petitioner as the
property should have been sold and the proceeds
divided equally between them. To this extent and
from then on, respondent should be held liable for
monthly rentals until he and his family vacate.
This addresses the question on how may a demand for
partition be made.
Normally it is done by a simple oral manifestation or
through a demand letter addressed to other co-owners,
asking for the partition of the thing.
Still another mode of making a formal demand for
partition is when you file a formal action in court to
compel the sale of the property, as ITCAB.
A civil action was filed to compel you to submit to
partition. Are you liable to pay rentals for your act of
exclusively possessing the property even after an action
!
to compel the sale of the property has already been
made?
SC ruled that you are liable. Filing an action to compel
the sale to the property is tantamount is demand for
partition. The moment there is demand and you did not
submit to partition immediately and continued staying in
the premises, you cannot continue in possession of the
co-owned property without paying the appropriate
rentals for your exclusive use of the property.
The act of filing an action is already tantamount to a
demand for partition. Thereby, if the allegations are
proven, co-ownership is already deemed terminated and
consequently the right to enjoy the possession jointly
also ceases at that moment.
PARTITION
(MODE OF TERMINATING CO-OWNERSHIP)
Rule 69 (ROC, as amended by 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure)
Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real
estate – a person having the right to compel the
partition of real estate may do so as provided in this
Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and
extent of his title and an adequate description of the
real estate of which partition is demanded and
joining as defendants all other persons interested in
the property.
Section. 2. Order for partition, and partition, by
agreement thereunder – If after the trial the court
finds that the plaintiff has the right thereto, it shall
order the partition of the real estate among all the
parties in interest. Thereupon the parties may, if they
are able to agree, make the partition among
themselves by proper instruments of conveyance,
and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed
upon by all the parties, and such partition, together
with the order of the court confirming the same, shall
be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in
which the property is situated.
A final order decreeing partition and accounting may
be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby.
Partition of a co-owned property or co-owned thing may
either be done extrajudicially or judicially in which case
the proceeding will be governed primarily by Rule 69 of
the ROC.
The filing of a petition for partition pursuant to Rule 69
should presuppose that there is an existing co-
ownership.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
Policy regarding the demand to ask for partition
QUINTOS v. NICOLAS
From the above-quoted provision, it can be gleaned
that the law generally does not favor the retention of
co-ownership as a property relation, and is interested
instead in ascertaining the co-owners' specific shares
so as to prevent the allocation of portions to remain
perpetually in limbo. Thus, the law provides that
each co-owner may demand at any time the partition
of the thing owned in common.
Between dismissal with prejudice under Rule 17, Sec.
3 and the right granted to co-owners under Art. 494
of the Civil Code, the latter must prevail. To construe
otherwise would diminish the substantive right of a
co-owner through the promulgation of procedural
rules. Such a construction is not sanctioned by the
principle, which is too well settled to require citation,
that a substantive law cannot be amended by a
procedural rule.
Partition is a right, which can be demanded by a co-
owner anytime, consistent with the principle that the law
does not generally favor the retention of co-ownership.
Validity of parol (oral) partition
QUIMPO v. ABAD
Partition may be inferred from circumstances
sufficiently strong to support the presumption. Thus,
after a long possession in severalty, a deed of
partition may be presumed.
A parol partition may also be sustained on the
ground that the parties thereto have acquiesced in
and ratified the partition by taking possession in
severalty, exercising acts of ownership with respect
thereto, or otherwise recognizing the existence of the
partition
There should be no question about the validity of the
oral partition. This is not among the transactions
covered by the Statute of Frauds. In other words, even if
the partition was made orally, it is valid and enforceable.
LIMITATIONS TO THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR
PARTITION
1. Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing
undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding
ten years shall be valid. This term may be extended
by a new agreement. (2nd par, Art 494)
2. A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a
period, which shall not exceed twenty years. (3rd
par, Art 494)
!
3. Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the
co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of
them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold
and its proceeds distributed (Art 498)
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF PARTITION
ART. 499. The partition of a thing owned in
common shall not prejudice third persons, who shall
retain the rights of mortgage, servitude or any other
real rights belonging to them before the division was
made. Personal rights pertaining to third persons
against the co-ownership shall also remain in force,
notwithstanding the partition.
ART. 500. Upon partition there shall be a mutual
accounting for benefits received and
reimbursements for expenses made. Likewise, each
co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of
his negligence or fraud.
ART. 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition, be
liable for defects of title and quality of the
portion assigned to each of the other co-owners.
By partition, this includes extrajudicial (oral).
499. If a third person has a right of mortgage or enjoys
a servitude or any other real right over a co-owned
property, such third person continues to enjoy that right
even after partition because partition of a thing is not a
mode of extinguishing rights.
501. What do we mean by this? For example, a property
is adjudicated to one co-owner that that property has
defects of title (could not have been issued a certificate
of title because it formed part of a public land). This
prejudiced co-owner is entitled to demand from his other
co-owners for contribution to make up for that property
over which he was deprived of.
PRESCRIPTION
(AS A MODE OF TERMINATING CO- OWNERSHIP)
ART. 494 No prescription shall run in favor of a co-
owner or co- heir against his co-owners or co-heirs
so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the
co-ownership.
This is the general rule. If only one co-owner has been
in possession of a co-owned property, that circumstance
will not give rise to prescription in favor of that co-owner
in actual possession because the theory is that his
possession is for and in behalf of his co-heirs, co-
ownership being a form of a trust relationship.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio

MARIANO v. DE VEGA
"No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or
co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as
he expressly or impliedly recognizes the in view of
their lack of a clear repudiation of the co-ownership,
duly communicated to the petitioners (the other co-
owners), private respondents cannot acquire the
shares of the petitioners by prescription.
The record in the Office of the Assessor is not the
sufficient repudiation and communication
contemplated by the law. Neither may the Private
respondents' possession of the premises militate
against Petitioners' claim. After all, co-owners are
entitled to be in possession of the premises. The
existence of the co-ownership here argues against
the theory of implied trust, for then a co-owner
possesses co- owned property not in behalf of the
other co-owners but in his own behalf.
Registration in one’s name is not necessarily
repudiation
VDA. DE FIGURACION v. FIGURACION-
GERILLA
The act of Hilaria and Felipa in effecting the
registration of the entire Lot No. 707 in their names
thru TCT No. 42244 did not serve to effectively
repudiate the co-ownership. The respondent built her
house on the eastern portion of the lot in 1981
without any opposition from the petitioners. Hilaria
also paid realty taxes on the lot, in behalf of the
respondent, for the years 1983-1987. These events
indubitably show that Hilaria and Felipa failed to
assert exclusive title in themselves adversely to
Emilia. Their acts clearly manifest that they
recognized the subsistence of their co-ownership with
respondent Emilia despite the issuance of TCT No.
42244 in 1962.
Their acts constitute an implied recognition of the co-
ownership, which in turn negates the presence of a
clear notice of repudiation to the respondent. To
sustain a plea of prescription, it must always clearly
appear that one who was originally a joint owner has
repudiated the claims of his co-owners, and that his
co-owners were apprised or should have been
apprised of his claim of adverse and exclusive
ownership before the alleged prescriptive period
began to run.
The certificate of title or tax declaration in the name of
just one co-owner is by itself not sufficient to prove that
this co-owner whose name appears in those document
!
repudiated the co-ownership, which would warrant the
prescriptive period to run.
Rationale: The co-owners’ relationship is fiduciary in
character. No co-owner may invoke is sole possession a
basis to claim prescription later on.
Prescription (in favor of a co-owner) after
repudiation of co-ownership
DE LIMA v. CA
In other words, no prescription shall run in favor of a co-
owner against his co- owners or co-heirs so long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership (Del
Blanco v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. 72694,
December 1, 1987, 156 SCRA 55).
However, when one of the co-owners claims that he is the
absolute and exclusive owner of the properties and denies
the others any share therein, the question involved is no
longer one of partition but of ownership (De Castro v.
Echarri, 20 Phil. 23; Bargayo v. Camumot, supra; De los
Santos v. Santa Teresa, 44 Phil. 811). In such case, the
imprescriptibility of the action for partition can no longer be
invoked or applied when one of the co-owners has
adversely possessed the property as exclusive owner for a
period sufficient to vest ownership by prescription.
Evidence shows that TCT No. 2744 in the name of the legal
heirs of Lino Delima, represented by Galileo Delima, was
cancelled by virtue of an affidavit executed by Galileo
Delima and that on February 4, 1954, Galileo Delima
obtained the issuance of a new title in Ms name numbered
TCT No. 3009 to the exclusion of his co-heirs.
The issuance of this new title constituted an open and clear
repudiation of the trust or co- ownership, and the lapse of
ten (10) years of adverse possession by Galileo Delima
from February 4, 1954 was sufficient to vest title in him by
prescription
SC took note of the fact that there was already
repudiation of co-ownership.
Repudiation of co-ownership
Take note of 494. If this co-owner who is now invoking
prescription repudiates co-ownership and the other co-
owners who were repudiated did not immediately take
action like filed an action for partition, then prescription
will start to run from the date of repudiation. It means
that a co-owner is no longer recognizing the existence of
co-ownership. As ITCAB, the co-owner executed
documents wherein he made it appear that he is the
only owner of the property.
The execution of this document stating that he is the
only owner of the property in question is already a form
of repudiation of the co-ownership.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
On the basis of that document (affidavit of adjudication
by sole heir) he was able to successfully obtain a title in
his name alone. This is another act of repudiation.
The other co-owners did not take action within the
period provided for by law, which is 10 years from the
time that this document was registered.
This co-owner who made these documents, placing the
property under his name had already acquired sole and
exclusive ownership on the basis of prescription because
it was preceded by a repudiation of co-ownership.
Requisites for repudiation to be effective
PANGAN v. CA
For title to prescribe in favor of the co-owner,
however, there must be a clear showing that he has
repudiated the claims of the other co-owners and
that they have been categorically advised of the
exclusive claim he is making to the property in
question. It is only when such unequivocal notice has
been given that the period of prescription will begin
to run against the other co-owners and ultimately
divest them of their own title if they do not
seasonably defend it.
Adverse possession requires the concurrence of the
following circumstances:
1. That the trustee has performed unequivocal
acts amounting to an ouster of the cestui que
trust (other co owners);
2. That such positive acts of repudiation had
been made known to the cestui que trust; and
3. That the evidence thereon should be clear and
conclusive.
Specific findings of fact of the court
PANGAN v. CA
Noticeably absent here is a categorical assertion by the
petitioners of their exclusive right to the entire property
that barred her own claim of ownership of one-half
thereof nor is there any explanation as to why they said
she had no right to a share. If this trusting woman did
not immediately take legal action to protect her rights, it
was simply because of forbearance toward her nephews
and nieces, let alone the fact that there was really no
casus belli as yet that required her to act decisively.
That legal provocation arose only when the petitioners
commenced the registration proceedings in 1965, and it
was form that time she was required to act, as she did,
to protect her interests.
The facts established did not establish a clear case of
repudiation of co-ownership.
!
HEIRS OF MANINDING v. CA
Therefore while prescription among co-owners
cannot take place when the acts of ownership
exercised are vague and uncertain, such prescription
arises and produces all its effects when the acts of
ownership do not evince any doubt as to the ouster
of the rights of the other co- owners.
As disclosed by the records, Roque Bauzon and his
heirs possessed the property from 1948 to 1986 to
the exclusion of petitioners who were never given
their shares of the fruits of the properties, for which
reason they demanded an accounting of the produce
and the conveyance to them of their shares.
Unfortunately they slept on their rights and allowed
almost thirty-six (36) years to lapse before
attempting to assert their right. Perforce, they must
suffer the consequence of their inaction
Sleeping on one’s rights (sufficient to make
prescription run in favor of one co-owner)
The moment there is repudiation of ownership, it is
incumbent upon the other co-owners who are disowned
to immediately take legal action to compel the
recognition of the co-ownership such as by filing the
appropriate action for partition.
Here, the other co-owners or exclusive heirs did not take
action from 1948-1986. This was taken by the SC to
mean as sleeping on one’s rights. Because of this, there
was already a sufficient period to make prescription run
in favor of that co-owner who is now claiming sole and
exclusive ownership.
Case of repudiation of co-ownership
SALVADOR v. CA
There is clear repudiation of a trust when one who is an
apparent administrator of property causes the cancellation
of the title thereto in the name of the apparent
beneficiaries and gets a new certificate of title in his own
name.
It is only when the defendants, alleged co-owners of the
property in question, executed a deed of partition and on
the strength thereof obtained the cancellation of the title in
the name of their predecessor and the issuance of a new
one wherein they appear as the new owners of a definite
area each, thereby in effect denying or repudiating the
ownership of one of the plaintiffs over his alleged share in
the entire lot, that the statute of limitations started to run
for the purposes of the action instituted by the latter
seeking a declaration of the existence of the co- ownership
and of their rights thereunder.|
Here, this apparent administrator of property caused the
cancellation of the title in the name of the other
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
apparent beneficiaries. He was able to successfully
obtain a new certificate of title in his own name. These
acts are deemed as sufficient proof of repudiation of co-
ownership.
A case where prescription is not counted from
issuance of the title
MARITEGUI v. CA
It is true that registration under the Torrens system
is constructive notice of title, but it has likewise been
our holding that the Torrens title does not furnish a
shield for fraud. It is therefore no argument to say
that the act of registration is equivalent to notice of
repudiation, assuming there was one,
notwithstanding the long-standing rule that
registration operates as a universal notice of title."
Inasmuch as petitioners registered the properties in
their names in fraud of their co-heirs prescription can
only be deemed to have commenced from the time
private respondents discovered the petitioners' act of
defraudation (Adille vs. Court of Appeals, supra).
Hence, prescription definitely may not be invoked by
petitioners because private respondents commenced
the instant action barely two months after learning
that petitioners had registered in their names the lots
involved.
General rule: date of registration of the questioned
document, in accordance with the principle of
constructive notice
Exception: ITCAB it was counted from the date of the
discovery of the fraudulent act. This is a highly
exceptional case. Cannot be cited as a judicial precedent
in all cases.
CONDOMINIUM LAW (RA 4726)
Sec. 2. A condominium is an interest in real property
consisting of separate interest in a unit in a residential,
industrial or commercial building and an undivided
interest in common, directly or indirectly, in the land on
which it is located and in other common areas of the
building. A condominium may include, in addition, a
separate interest in other portions of such real property.
Sec. 4. The provision of this Act shall apply to property
divided or to be divided into condominiums only if there
shall be recorded in the Registry of Deeds of the
province or city in which the property lies and duly
annotated in the corresponding certificate of title of the
land, if the latter had been patented or registered under
the Land Registration or Cadastral Acts, an enabling or
master deed.
!
EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF A UNIT
Sec. 5. Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an
apartment, office or store or other space therein, shall
include the transfer or conveyance of the undivided
interests in the common areas or, in a proper case, the
membership or shareholdings in the condominium
corporations.
PARTITION OF CONDOMINIUM
Sec. 8. Where several persons own condominiums in a
condominium project, an action may be brought by one
or more such persons for partition thereof by sale of the
entire project, as if the owners of all of the
condominiums in such project were co-owners of the
entire project in the same proportion as their interests in
the common areas: Partition shall be made upon
showing that:
1. That three years after damage or destruction to the
project which renders material part thereof unit for
its use prior thereto, the project has not been rebuilt
or repaired
2. That damage or destruction to the project has
rendered one-half or more of the units therein
untenantable and that condominium owners holding
in aggregate more than thirty percent interest in the
common areas are opposed to repair or restoration
of the project
3. That the project has been in existence in excess of
fifty years, that it is obsolete and uneconomic, and
that condominium owners holding in aggregate
more than fifty percent interest in the common
areas are opposed to repair or restoration or
remodeling or modernizing of the project
4. That the project or a material part thereof has been
condemned or expropriated and that the project is
no longer viable, or that the condominium owners
holding in aggregate more than seventy percent
interest in the common areas are opposed to
continuation of the condominium regime
5. That the conditions for such partition by sale set
forth in the declaration of restrictions, duly
registered in accordance with the terms of this Act,
have been met.
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
The owner of a project shall, prior to the conveyance of
any condominium therein, register a declaration of
restrictions relating to such project, which restrictions
shall constitute a lien upon each condominium in the
project. The Register of Deeds shall enter and annotate
the declaration of restrictions upon the certificate of title
covering the land included within the project, if the land
is patented or registered under the Land Registration or
Cadastral Acts.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION
Whenever the common areas in a condominium project
are held by a condominium corporation, such
corporation shall constitute the management body of the
project. The corporate purposes of such a corporation
shall be limited to the holding of the common areas,
either in ownership or any other interest in real property
recognized by law, to the management of the project,
and to such other purposes as may be necessary,
incidental or convenient accomplishment of said
purposes.

Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio

!