Co-ownership

Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. In default of contracts, or of special provisions, coownership shall be governed by the provisions of this Title. (392)

and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically described.

(c) Recognition

of ideal share- which determines the rights and obligations of the co-owners. All the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire property.

1) Co-ownership as the right of common dominion which two

or more persons have in a spiritual part of a thing, not materially or physically divided. (Sanchez v. Ca, 404 scra 540) 2) Requisites of Co-ownership

3) Dual nature of ownership in co-ownership

(a) Ownership over the ideal share- there

exist in favor of each co-owner a portion which is definite in amount but not physically and actually identified, the same being merely ideal. With respect to this ideal or abstract share, a co-owner exercise absolute ownership and he may, therefore, dispose of it in any manner he pleases.

(a) Plurality of subjects- the regime of coownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.

(b) Unity of the object- which means that

there is a single objects which is not materially divided, and which is the element which binds the subjects. Owner of the whole, and over the whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of which is truly abstract. Rationale is that until a division is made, the respective share of each cannot be determined and every co-owner exercises, together with his co-participants, joint ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the same. Note: there is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined

(b) Joint ownership over the whole- until a

division is made, the respective share of each cannot be determined. Mutual respect is observed by the co-owners in regard to the use, enjoyment and preservation of the thing as a whole. (Art.486) Note: once partition is affected or once the property is subdivided and distributed among the co-owners, the co-ownership is terminated. There is no coownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable, even of not yet technically described. Where the property had already been partitioned judicially or extrajudicially or where the portion belonging to the parties has been identified and localized, the right of legal redemption cannot be invoked. Note: during the existence of the co-ownership, therefore, no co-owner can claim title to any definite portion of the community property until the partition

1 LordJayong

therefore, and prior to the partition, all that the coowner has an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire land or thing. Such undisturbed possession, according to the court, had the effect of a partial partition of the co-owned property which entitles the possessor to the definite portion which he occupies. (vda. De Cabrera v. CA, 267scra339) 4) Co-ownership v. Partnership Co-ownership does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property.

(e) As to the effect of death:

coownership, the death of a co-owner does not dissolve the co-ownership. A partnership, the death of a partner brings about the dissolution of the partnership. coownership, a co-owner may freely dispose of his share. A partnership, a partner has no power of disposal as to make the buyer a partner unless agreed upon by all the other partners. persons: co-ownership, a co-owner does not represent the co-ownership. A partnership, a partner usually represents the partnership and may bind the partnership.

(f) As to disposal of share:

(g) As to the power to act with third

(a) As to creation: co-ownership may exist

without the necessity of a contract, also is created not only by reasons of contracts. A partnership, on the other hand, requires the existence of a contract in order to arise.

5) Sources of co-ownership

(b) As to personality:

co-ownership does not possess a juridical personality distinct from the co-owners. A partnership has juridical personality separate and distinct from that of each of the partners. only for the purpose of common enjoyment of the thing owned in common. A partnership, it is important that there must be an agreement to divide the profits among the partners. The idea of common profit that may be derived from the things or services contributed to the partnership is an essential feature.

(a) Law: when a man and woman, who are

capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. (Art.147, family code)

(c) As to purpose: co-ownership, which is

(b) Contract: an agreement to keep the thing

undivided for a certain period, exceeding ten years, shall be valid. not

(c) Succession: there are two or more heirs,

the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased. The testator likewise prohibits the portion of the estate among the heirs for a period not to exceed twenty (20) years.

(d) As to duration: co-ownership,

an agreement not to divide the property for more than ten (10) years is not valid with respect to the excess. A partnership, there is no limit as to the time of its existence.

2 LordJayong

(d) Fortuitous event or chance: will arise if

two things of the same kind or different kinds are mixed by chance and the things are not separable without injury.

Pedro P., Juan T. and Jose M. decided to buy a house and lot in the amount of P900, 000.00. They agreed that Pedro shall contribute P450, 000 (50%), Juan P250, 000 (25%) and Jose P250, 000 (25%).

(e) Occupancy: catch a wild pig or get forest

products or when a hidden treasure is accidentally discovered by a stranger, who is not a trespasser, on the land of another. 6) Rules governing co-ownership

1) Determining the ideal share of each co-owner: the

parties may nonetheless agree that their respective share in the co-ownership shall be equal. In the absent of such contrary agreement, it is understood that the share of each co-owner shall be in proportion to their respective contributions.

(a) Contracts: if the source of co-ownership is

a contract, it will be governed primarily by the contract between the parties and, in default thereof, by the provisions of article 484 to 501 of the new civil code.

2) Determining the share in benefits and charges: if

the co-owners have agreed that their share in the coownership shall be in proportion to their respective contributions, then all the benefits and charges shall likewise be divided among them in proportion to their share in the capital.

(b) Special provisions of law: if the coownership is governed by the special provisions of law, such provisions shall primarily govern the co-ownership while the provisions of Article 484 to 501 shall be applied only in a suppletory character. e.g.: if the regime of absolute community of property applies to the spouses by default pursuant to the provisions of Article 75 of the family code, then the provisions of the Family Code on absolute community shall primarily govern and the provisions of the civil code on coownership shall apply in suppletory manner.
Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void. The portions belonging to the co-owners in the coownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved. (393a)

(a) If they will earn a monthly rental income in

the amount of P30, 000.00 from the coowned property, Pedro shall be entitled to P15, 000.00 (50%), Juan to P7, 500.00 (25%) and Jose also to P7, 500.00 (25%). (b) In the same way, if they will incur real estate tax obligation in the sum of P9,000.00, Pedro will have to shoulder P4,500 (50%), Juan P2,500 (25%) and Jose P2,500 (25%).

3) Any stipulation in the contrary is void: in the

example, the share of each co-owner in the benefits as well as in the charges should be proportional to their respective interest in their co-ownership. Pedro 50%, Juan 25% and Jose 25%. They may not agree that they shall share equally in the rental income and in the payment of the real estate tax. Such agreement is void. Any stipulation to the contrary shall be void.

3 LordJayong

Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the coownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied. (394a)

ownership can either exercise an equal right to live in the house, or agree to lease it. If they fail to exercise any of these options, they must bear the consequences. It would be unjust to require the co-owner to pay the rent after the co-owners by their silence have allowed him to use the property. (De Guia v. CA, 413scra114)

Each co-owner has the right to make use of the entire thing owned in common subject to the limitations provided for in Article 486 of the New Civil Code.

(c) Such use must not be in a manner as

to prevent the other co-owners from using the thing according to their own right.

(i) Where part of the property is occupied 1) Limitations on the right to use: (a) Such use must be in accordance with
the purpose for which the thing is intended. (i) Thus, if the co-owners of a residential house agree that it shall be used as a warehouse then each co-owner must use it only for that purpose but, if there is no purpose agreed upon, then such house may be used according to its nature and that is for dwelling purposes. (ii) A cellular phone as an object of coownership cannot be used as a nutcracker if there is no stipulation from the party that its purpose is for opening nuts. exclusively by some co-owners for the exploitation of an industry, the other co-owners become co-participants in the accessions of the property and should share in its net profits. (De Guia v. CA, 413scra114)

Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. (n)

1) Action in ejectment- is a term, not only includes a suit

of forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio), but all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession, including an accion publiciana and a reinvicatory action.

(b) Such use must be without prejudice to

the rights of the other co-owners; and

2) Action must be instituted for all:

(i) A co-owner cannot devote common

property to his exclusive use to the prejudice of the ownership. The co-

if the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession thereof, the action will not prosper unless he impleads the other co-owners who are indispensable parties. It is understood that the action is being instituted for all. Hence, if the co-owner

4 LordJayong

expressly states that he is bringing the case only for himself, the action should not be allowed to prosper.

3) Action may be available even against a coowner:

any co-owner may file an action under Article 487 not only against a third person, but also against another coowner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of the property. The only purpose of the action is to obtain recognition of the co-ownership and not to the exclusion of such, because as co-owner he has a right of possession. The co-owner taking the action cannot recover any material or determinate part of the property (De Guia v. CA, 413scra114). Note: A co-owner has no right to demand a concrete, specific or determinate part of the thing owned in common because until division is effected his right over the thing is represented only by an ideal portion (Engreso v. De La Cruz, 401scra217).

cannot include those which, not being for preservation, merely produce benefits for the owner, and much less those which are for mere luxury, embellishment or pleasure. Expenses for preservation will include all those which, if not made would endanger the existence of the thing or reduce its value or productivity. Note: the expenses advanced for preservation by one co-owner should be borne by all, and the others are bound to contribute their respective shares therein.

2) Remedy against defaulting co-owner: there is no

other remedy available against the co-owner who refuses to pay his share in expenses of preservation, except an action to compel him to contribute such share. Note: his failure does not in itself amount to a renunciation of any portion of his share in the coownership. Neither can he be compelled to renounce, because renunciation is a voluntary and free act.

4) Effects of judgment upon the other co-owners: any

judgment of the court in favor of the plaintiff will benefit the other co-owners, but if the judgement is adverse the same cannot prejudice the rights of the unimpleaded coowners. (Baloloy v. Hular, 438scra80)

3) Consent to renunciation: is/are the consent of the

co-owner(s) necessary in renunciation? Since the renunciation refers to a portion equivalent in value to the share of the renouncing co-owner who must shoulder the debt of the renouncer in exchange for the portion being renounced, should consent to his partial renunciation. The share of the renouncing co-owner simply means accrued to the others, who in the future would have bear the expenses of the preservation in the increased proportion of their respective interests.

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. (395a)

4) Renunciation of a co-owner: the law permits any

co-owner to exempt himself from the obligation to contribute to necessary expenses and taxes renouncing so much of his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share in the expenses and taxes, in lieu of paying their proportionate contribution to such expenses. Note: this renunciation must be expressly made; a tacit renunciation cannot produce any effect.

1) Necessary Expenses: this article refers only to taxes

and expenses for the preservation of the thing, and

5 LordJayong

Note: it is necessary to appraise all the property in co-ownership, determine the value of the interest of the debtor (co-owner therein) and the renunciation must refer to a portion of that value equivalent to his share in the expenses and taxes. Example: A, B and C are co-owners of a car valued at P300,000.00 Assuming that A had the car repaired for the purpose of preserving it incurred the sum P30,000 in the process. Assuming that the interest of three in co-ownership is equal (or P100, 000 each), B and C is required to contribute P10, 000 each to the expenses so incurred. If B, for example, does not want to shell out P10, 000 and opts, instead, to renounce so much of his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses, he is required to renounce 1/10 of his share in favor of the co-owner who incurred the expenses.

Example: Mr. A owns two-thirds interest in the building, and B and C own one-sixth each. If B and C have just enough funds equal to one-sixth of the expected expenses for the repair of the building, and then A renounces in their favor all his interest in the building, the repair may become impossible of accomplishments for lack of funds. The waiver in this case is void. B and C can proceed to have the building repaired, and A would still be bound to pay his share of the expenses, not withstanding his renunciation.

5) Prejudicial renunciation: Article 488 prohibits the

exercise of the option of renunciation if it is prejudicial to the interest of the co-ownership. Note: the prejudice must refer to future expense. Example: A, B and C are co-owners of a property which is in need of immediate repairs for preservation but the amount thereof is more than A and B, together, can sustain. The law will not allow C to select for renunciation, in lieu of his contribution to the expenses. Such waiver is not allowed because it will be prejudicial to the interest of the co-ownership.

As share is bigger than B and Cs share put together. Even if the money of B and C is equivalent to one-third of the expenses. It will still be unfair for them to spend for As share, which is a two-thirds, a lot bigger than theirs.

6 LordJayong