CO-OWNERSHIP

Articles 484-501, Title III of the New Civil Code

Prepared by:

JD2A
Cabbigat, Cherry Blossom
Oligane, Lois Gianne
Ramilo, Karizze Allen

JD2B
Cruz, Noreen
Mabanta, Maureen

JD2C
Balocnit, Edward II
Lacsigen, Elaine Joy
Pandosen, Arlene

SY 2022-2023
Co-Ownership
● A form of ownership which exists whenever an undivided thing or right belongs to
different persons (Art 484, NCC)
● As a right - Co-ownership is 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 Court of
Appeals)
● Manifestation of the private right of ownership, which instead of being exercised by the
owner in an exclusive manner over the thing subject to it, it is exercised by two or more
owners and the undivided thing or right to which it refers is one and the same (Manresa)
Requisites
1. Plurality of Subjects
● Subjects: Co-owners
2. Unity of the Object
● Material indivision of the object - there is a single object which is not materially
divided and which is the element which binds the subjects
● A co-owner of an undivided parcel of land, 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” (De Guia v Court of Appeals)
3. Recognition of Ideal Share
● determines the rights and obligations of the co-owners

Dual Nature of Ownership In Co-ownership

1. Ownership over the Ideal share
● There exists in favor of each co-owner a portion which is definite in amount but
not physically and actually identified, the same being merely ideal.
● Each co-owner exercises absolute ownership over this ideal share
2. Joint Ownership over the whole
● Each co-owner is also considered as the owner of the whole and over the whole
he exercises the right of dominion. The underlying reason for this is that until a
division is made, the respective share of each cannot be determined.

A Co-Owner Cannot Claim A Definite Portion

● A co-owner cannot point to a specific portion of the property owned in common as
his own because his share therein remains intangible.
● 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 thereof, and prior to
the partition, all that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate
share in the entire land or thing.
● Vda. de Cabrera v. Court of Appeals
The Supreme Court held that the action filed, which is actually for reconveyance,
was already barred by laches considering that it was filed only after thirty years from
the time that the certificate of title was obtained. The argument that laches does not
apply because what was sold to the Cabreras was a definite portion of the
community property, and, therefore, void, is likewise untenable. The Supreme Court
had the occasion to hold that where the transferees of an undivided portion of the
land allowed a co-owner of the property to occupy a definite portion thereof, the
possessor is in a better condition or right than said transferees. (Potior est condition
possidentis). 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.

Characteristics
The characteristics of co-ownership refer to its requisites and other incidentals which distinguish
it from other forms of ownership. They include the following:
● There is no mutual representation by the co-owners
 ● It exists for the common enjoyment of the co-owners
● It has no distinct legal personality
● It is governed first of all by the contract of the parties; otherwise, by special legal
provisions, and in default of such provisions, by the provisions of Title III on
Co-ownership.

Distinction of Co-Ownership from others

Co-ownership Partnership

Creation May exist without contract Requires existence of contract

Personality Does not possess a juridical Has a juridical personality separate and
personality distinct from the distinct from that of each of the partners
co-owners

Purpose Common enjoyment of the thing Common profit derived from things or
owned in common services contributed to the partnership
is an essential feature

Duration An agreement not to divide the No limit as to the time of its existence
property for more than 10 years is
not valid with respect to the excess
(para 2, Art 494, NCC)

Effect of death Death of co-owner does not dissolve Death of partner brings about
dissolution

Disposal of Share Co-owner may freely dispose of his Partners has no power of disposal as to
share (Art 493, NCC) make the buyer a partner agreed upon
by all the other partners

Power to act with Co-owner does not represent the A partner usually represents the
third persons co-ownership partnership

Co-owners Joint Ownership

Ownership of share Each co-owner, together There is no abstract share

with the other (co-owner or ownership by the co-owners, the
co-owners), is the owner of the rights of the joint tenants being
whole undivided thing or right inseparable
but at the same time of his own
ideal part thereof

Disposition of shares Permitted to dispose of his A joint tenant, unlike a tenant in

share or interest in the property common, is not permitted to
without the consent of the dispose of his share or interest
others. in the property without the
consent of the others.

Effect of Death As in ownership in common the If a joint tenant dies, his

survivors are subrogated to the ownership dies with him. The
rights of the deceased surviving joint owner acquires
immediately upon the death of the right pertaining to the
the latter by virtue of their right deceased joint owner.
of survivorship or jus
accrescendi.
 Legal Disability or incapacity Not true for co-ownership. The disability of a joint tenant
inures to the benefit of the
others for purposes of
prescription, and, therefore,
prescription will not run against
the latter who can invoke the
disability as a defense.

Co-ownership Easement

There is in each co-owner a right of dominion Easement is precisely a limitation on the right
over the whole property and over his of dominion.
undivided share.

The right of ownership rests solely on The right of dominion is in favor of one or
each and every co-owner over a single more persons and over
object. two or more different things

Sources
1. By law
● By the will of their owners of two things of the same or different kinds are mixed
(Art 472, NCC)
● By the only one owner, but in good faith, two things of the same or different kids
are mixed or confused (Art 473, NCC)
● Man and woman who are capacitated to marry living exclusively as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage (147, Family Code)
2. By contract
● Agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period, not exceeding ten
years. And this term may be extended by a new agreement (Art 494, NCC)
3. By succession
● When a person dies intestate, leaving his properties undivided to several heirs,
who become co-owners of the inheritance.
4. By fortuitous event or chance
● As in cases of commixtion and confusion caused by accident or chance, and of
hidden treasure accidentally discovered by a stranger on the land of another
5. Occupancy
● When 2 persons catch a wild beast or gather forest products.

Rules Governing Co-Ownership

1. Contract
● Co-ownership is to be governed primarily by the contract between the parties
and, in default thereof, by the provisions of Articles 484 to 501 of the New Civil
Code
2. Special Provisions of Law
● Such provisions shall primarily govern the co-ownership while the provisions of
Articles 484 to 501 shall be applied only in a suppletory character.

Share of Co-owners in the Benefits and Charges

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.
Share of co-owners in benefits and charges.
● Co-owners share in the rights and obligations in the co-ownership
● These shall be proportional to the respective interests of each.
○ If one’s interest in the co-ownership is 1/4, his share in the benefits as well as in
the charges is also 1/4. The accretion added to any portion of land owned in
common shall benefit the co-owners in the same proportion; if it suffers
diminution, they shall have to share, too, the same in accordance with their
interests.
● The interests of the co-owners are presumed equal unless the contrary is proved.

Contrary stipulation in a contract.

● Any stipulation in a contract making the share in the benefits or charges disproportional
to the respective interests of the co-owners is declared void because such a stipulation
is contrary to the essence of a co-ownership.
○ Therefore, if the co-ownership is created other than by a contract, such as by will
or by donation, the share of the co-owners need not be proportionate to their
respective interests. There is no reason, for example, why the testator or donor
cannot provide for rules to govern to a certain extent a co-ownership created by
him.

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 co-ownership 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.

Nature of Co-Owner’s Right Over the Entire Thing or Right

● A co-owner of an undivided thing or right is an owner of the whole and over the whole he
exercises the right of dominion. However, with respect to the whole, a co-owner
exercises, together with his co-participants (or co-owners) joint ownership over the
co-owned property, the reason being that until a division is made, The respective share
of each cannot as yet be determined. the right of enjoyment by each co-owner is limited
by a similar right of the other co-owners

Limitations on co-owner’s right of use.

1. In accordance with the purpose for which the co-ownership is intended.
● To determine said purpose, resort must be had to the agreement, express or
implied, of the co-owners, and in the absence thereof, it is to be understood that
the thing is intended for that use for which it is ordinarily adapted according to its
nature. If a thing has been previously used for a particular purpose, it is
presumed that such is the purpose intended by the parties
● The co-owners are free to change the purpose of the co-ownership by
agreement, express or implied.
● Pardell v. Bartolome
With regard to that part occupied by Matilde as dwelling, no rental can be
collected in as much as she, being the co-owner, is entitled to use the same. With
respect, however, to that portion occupied by the husband, Bartolome, the latter
must pay one-half of the rentals which said quarters could and should have
produced had they been rented to strangers, inasmuch as he is not a co-owner of
the property.
2. In such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership.
 ● This limitation and the first are established in the interest of the co-ownership
itself.
● Using the community property for a different purpose, or for the exclusive benefit
of a co-owner (such as using an apartment house as a dwelling place without
paying rent), or in a destructive way, prejudices the interest of the co-ownership,
and ultimately those of the other co-owners.
3. In such a way as not to prevent the other co-owners from using it according to
their rights.
● The right of use by a co-owner is limited by the similar right of the other
co-owners.
● The co-ownership exists for the common enjoyment and use of the property
owned in common.
● A co-owner may use and enjoy the same without limitations, except that it be for
the purpose for which it is intended and that he must not prejudice the rights of
the other co-owners.
● In a co-ownership, the act of one benefits all the co-owners, unless the former
repudiates the co-ownership. Thus, if a co-owner prevails in a case for
reconveyance, it will also redound to the benefit of the other co-owners.

Ejectment Suit (Art 487, NCC)

Scope of Term “Ejectment”

● The term, “action in ejectment,” 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 reinvindicatory action

Action Must Be Instituted For All

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

Action Available Even Against A Co-Owner

● Any co-owner may file an action under Article 487 not only against a third person, but
also against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive
ownership of the property. In the latter case, however, the only purpose of the action is to
obtain recognition of the co-ownership.

Effect of Judgment Upon the Other Co-Owners

● Any adverse judgment cannot prejudice the rights of the unimpleaded co-owners.
However, any judgment of the court in favor of the co-owner will benefit the others.
● Santiago v. J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc., 110 Phil. 16 [1960]; Resuena v. Court of
Appeals, 454 SCRA 42 [2005]
An adverse decision in the action is not necessarily res judicata with respect to the other
co-owners not being parties to the action (there is no mutual representation between the
co-owners) but they are bound where it appears that the action was instituted in their
behalf with their express or implied consent, or where their rights in the co-ownership are
derived from the title of their predecessors in-interest found by the court to be invalid or
inexistent. Thus, where the deceased father was not the owner of the land inherited, the
children cannot be considered as co-heirs or co-owners.

Expenses of Preservation and to Taxes (Art 488, NCC)

Obligation to contribute to expenses of preservation and to taxes

 ● Article 488 refers only to necessary expenses such as those incurred for repair of a
building in a ruinous condition and to preserve the rights of joint owners to mining claims.
● Taxes on the thing owned in common are to be considered as necessary expenses
because if they are not paid, the property may be sold for tax delinquency or forfeited to
the government.
● Useful expenses even if the value of the community party is thereby increased, are not
covered, the purpose of a co-ownership not being for profit, unless such expenses were
incurred with the consent of the others.
● Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure) are not also refundable not being for
preservation.

Failure of Co-owner to contribute

● There is no other remedy available against the co- owner who refuses to pay his share in
the expenses of preservation except an action to compel him to contribute such share.
● Failure to contribute does not amount to a renunciation of any portion of share in the
co-ownership.
● The co-owner in default cannot be compelled to renounce his share therein.
Renunciation is a voluntary and free act.

Remedy of a co-owner:
● 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.

Rules of Renunciation:
● Total or partial
● Expressly made – a tacit renunciation cannot produce any effect.
● The renunciation is in reality a case of dacion en pago; the debt of the co-owner
consisting of his share in the expenses of preservation and taxes, is paid, not in money,
but in an interest in property.
● Since the renunciation refers to a portion equivalent in value to the share of the
renouncing co-owner in an existing debt, it is only logical that the other co-owners, who
must shoulder the debt of the renouncer in exchange for the portion being renounced,
should consent thereto.
● Renunciation refers to existing debts and NOT to future expenses.
● Renunciation is a free act; a co-owner may not be compelled to renounce.
● Waiver is not allowed if it is prejudicial to the co–ownership.

Prejudicial renunciation: No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the co-ownership.

● Illustration: In a building owned in common, urgent repairs are needed. Otherwise, the
building is going to collapse. A owns 2/3 interest in the building, and B and C own 1/6
each. If B and C each have just enough funds equal to 1/6 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 to accomplish 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, notwithstanding his renunciation.

Notice of Necessity for Necessary Expenses; Expenses for Administration and Better
Enjoyment (Art 489, NCC)

GENERAL RULE:
● A co-owner has the right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses for
preservation of the thing owned in common.

EXCEPTION:
 ● The law, however, requires that the co-owner must, if practicable, first notify the
co-owners.
● If impracticable or where the repairs are very urgent and the other co-owners are in
remote places and cannot be reached by ordinary means of communication, the notice
may be dispensed with.

Expenses for Preservation

● Right To Demand Contribution - The law grants each co-owner the right to demand
contribution from the other co-owners for any and all expenses he incurred for the
purpose of preserving the thing or right owned in common, even if the repairs for
preservation were made without the consent of the other co-owners.

● When Notice Required - a co-owner who desires to undertake such repair is not
required to secure the consent of the other co-owners. The giving of notice, however, is
required only if the same is “practicable” given the circumstances by which the repair is
to be undertaken.

● Effect of Failure to Comply With the Notice Requirement - According to Senator

Tolentino, such failure does not deprive the co-owner who incurred the expenses of the
right to recover the proportionate shares of the other co-owners in the expenses. The
only effect of such failure is to place upon the co-owner who incurred the expenses the
burden of proving the necessity of the repairs and the reasonableness of the expenses.

● Renunciation By A Co-Owner - While the other co-owners can be compelled to

contribute proportionately to the expenses incurred for the purpose of preserving the
thing or right owned in common, they are given by law an option of “renouncing so much
of (their) undivided interest as may be equivalent to (their) share of the expenses and
taxes,” in lieu of paying their proportionate contribution to such expenses.

● Requirement of Consent in Renunciation - From the language of Article 488, it

appears that the consent of the co-owner who made the advances is not required when
a co-owner opts to renounce, in lieu of paying his share in the expenses. Note that the
law gives such an option only to the co-owner who may be compelled to contribute to
such expenses without requiring the consent of the co-owner who made the advances.

● Limitation on the Exercise of the Option of Renunciation - Article 488 prohibits the
exercise of the option of renunciation if it is prejudicial to the interest of the co-ownership.

● Includes Payment of Taxes and Expenses - Under Article 488, the expenses for the
preservation of the thing include payment of taxes due on the property owned in
common, i.e., real estate tax on the land owned in common. The expenses for the
preservation of the thing also include taxes.

Expenses to improve or embellish are a matter of administration and better enjoyment of the
thing owned in common.
● There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who
represent the controlling interest in the object of co-ownership (not numerical
superiority).
● “Majority of the co-owners” do not refer to numerical majority but to the majority of
interest.
○ Example: If A, B, and C are co-owners of a parcel of land where the share of A is
⅗ while the share of B and C is ⅕ each, the consent of A alone will be sufficient for
the making of an act of administration. A represents the controlling interest in the
co-ownership - A then shall be considered the majority of co-owners.

Different Stories of a House Belonging to Different Owners

Art. 490. Whenever the different stories of a house belong to different owners, if the titles
of ownership do not specify the terms under which they should contribute to the
necessary expenses and there exists no agreement on the subject, the following rules
shall be observed:
● The main and party walls, the roof and the other things used in common, shall be
preserved at the expense of all the owners in proportion to the value of the story
belonging to each;
● Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the floor of his story; the floor of the
entrance, front door, common yard and sanitary works common to all, shall be
maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata;
● The stairs from the entrance to the first story shall be maintained at the expense of
all the owners pro rata, with the exception of the owner of the ground floor; the stairs
from the first to the second story shall be preserved at the expense of all, except the
owner of the ground floor and the owner of the first story; and so on successively.

Perpendicular Co-ownership
● This is not an ordinary case of co-ownership where all the floors and everything else
belong to all co-owners. Here, we have a case of “perpendicular co-ownership” where
the different stories belong to different persons. This is still co-ownership for there is
some unity in the use or ornamentation of the property, particularly in the main and
common walls, roof, stairs, etc. This is uncommon in our country.

Proportionate contribution is required for the preservation of:

● The main walls
● The party walls
● The roof
● The other things used in common.

📓NOTE:
● Each floor owner must bear the expenses of his floor.
● Stairs are to be maintained from story to story, by the users.

The Condominium Act

● Condominium projects are not covered by Article 490, rather are governed by R.A. 4726:
The Condominium Act
● A condominium - an interest in real property consisting of a separate interest in a unit
and an undivided interest in the common areas:
1. A separate interest in a unity in a residential, industrial or commercial building
● In such a situation, there is co-ownership among the unit owners, with
respect to the undivided interest in the land and common areas.

2. An undivided interest in common, directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is

located and in other common areas of the building
● Contemplates of a situation where the land and other common areas are
to be held by the condominium corporation, in which case, the owners of
the individual units are automatically considered members or
shareholders of the corporation

Alterations

Art. 491. None of the co-owners shall without the consent of the others, make alterations
in the thing owned in common, even though benefits for all would result therefrom.
However, if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly
prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief.
Necessity of consent of other co-owners for alterations
● Meaning of alteration.
○ Act that affects the substance of the thing and changes its essence and nature
○ Act that 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.
● Form of consent
○ No mention in the law
○ What is required is the act must be authorized by all co-owners prior to or after
the commission of the act
● Effect of Unauthorized Alterations
○ Alteration without the consent of all the co-owners, is illegal and invalid. The
co-owners can compel the erring co-owner to undo what has been done at his
expense. (Art 1168) The erring co-owner shall also be liable for any loss or
damages which the co-ownership may have suffered.
○ The co–owner who makes such alteration without the express or implied consent
of the other co–owners acts in bad faith, as a punishment he should:
■ Lose what he spent.
■ Be obliged to demolish the improvements done.
■ Be liable to pay for losses and damages the community property or the
other co–owners may have suffered.
■ Whatever is beneficial or useful to the co-ownership shall belong to it.

May any one of the co-owners make alterations in the thing owned in common?
● Yes, provided there is a consent from all the co-owners.

Does consent need to be in writing?

● No, actually, there is no prescribed form or kind of consent for making alterations. What
is merely required is that the act of alteration must be authorized by all the co-owners
whether it is given prior to or after the commission of the act. Consent may be expressed
or implied.

What is the effect of an unauthorized Alteration?

● Illegal/invalid. The other co-owners can compel the erring co-owners to undo what has
been done at the latter’s expense(Remedy provided by Art.1168 of the NCC). In
addition, he shall also be liable for any losses or damages which the co-ownership may
suffer.

Rules for Acts of Administration & Better Enjoyment (Art 492, NCC)

Art. 491: Alteration Art. 492: Administration

Repairs for preservation of the thing owned in Expenses to improve or embellish the thing
common may be made at the will of only one of the shall be decided upon by a majority.
co-owners.

More permanent results relate to the substance or form Transitory in character.

of the thing. - not of long duration

When the enjoyment of the thing does not require its When the thing in its nature requires changes.
modification.
BETTER ENJOYMENT:
 a. For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing owned in common, the
resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding.
b. There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who
represent the controlling interest in the object of the co-ownership.
c. Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of the majority be seriously
prejudicial to those interested in the property owned in common, the Court, at the
instance of an interested party, shall order such measures as it may deem proper,
including the appointment of administrator.

Acts of administration
● Expenses to improve or embellish the thing for the purpose of better enjoyment
○ Example: hiring a security guard, lease
● NOT AN ACT OF ADMINISTRATION: Repairs for preservation of the thing owned in
common (since this may be made at the will of the only one of the co-owners) (489)

Characteristics of acts of administration:

a. They refer to the enjoyment of the thing.
b. They have transitory effects.
c. Alterations which do not affect the substance or form of the thing.

● A lease ceases to be an act of administration and becomes an act of ownership when it

is required to be recorded in the Registry of Property with a special power of attorney. A
special power of attorney shall be necessary when the lease of any real property is for a
period of more than 1 year.
● In this management, the majority of interests control, and their decisions are binding
upon the minority. In making these decisions, however, there should be a notice to the
minority, so that they can be heard, and the majority will be justified in proceeding
without previous consultation with the minority, only when the urgency of the case and
the difficulty of meeting so require.

Acts considered as prejudicial to the co-ownership:

● When the resolution calls for a substantial change or alteration of the common property
or of the use to which it has been dedicated by agreement or by its nature
● When the resolution goes beyond the limit of mere administration or invades property
rights of the co-owners in violation of Article 491
● When the majority authorizes lease, loans or other contracts without security, exposing
the thing to serious danger to the prejudice of the other co-owners
● When the majority refuses to dismiss an administrator who is guilty of fraud or
negligence in his management, or he does not have the respectability, aptitude, and
solvency required of persons holding such positions

📓NOTE:
● Repairs for preservation of the thing owned in common may be made at the will of only
one of the co-owners. No need for resolution of the majority of the co-owners, hence, not
an act of administration.
● If the enjoyment of the thing does not require modification, whatever modification or
change that is done is an alteration.
ART. 493. Each co-owner shall have the FULL OWNERSHIP of his part and the fruits and
benefits pertaining thereto. He may:

What if a co-owner sold a definite portion of the property?

● A co-owner has no right to sell a divided part, by metes and bound, of the real estate
owned in common. He can only alienate his pro-indiviso (undivided) share in the
co-owned property. All that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or
proportionate share in the entire land or thing until there is a physical adjudication. Thus,
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. (Nufable v.
Nufable)

What right then does a vendee have over the lot he had bought from the vendor, a
co-owner of the property?
→ What he obtains by virtue of the sale are the rights as the vendor had as a co-owner.
Meaning, he becomes a co-owner of the property.

What if the property is registered under the Torrens system solely in the name of a co-owner,
can he claim ownership over the entire property?

● No. Co-ownership is a form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the others.
Before the partition of a land or thing held in common, no individual or co-owner can
claim title to any definite portion.
What if a co-owner sold the co-owned property that is registered under his name, can the buyer
set up the defense of the doctrine of buyer in good faith?

● Yes. In Cruz v. Leiz, the Supreme Court held that while, as a rule, Gertrudes could only
dispose of her share in the property owned in common pursuant to Art. 493 of the Civil
Code, the purchaser acquires a valid title to the entire property even as against her
children (co-heir) based on the principle that “a person dealing with registered land is not
required to go behind the register to determine the condition of the property.” The Court
explained that “(the purchaser) is only charged with notice of the burdens on the
property which are noted on the face of the register or the certificate of title” and “ to
require him to do more is to defeat one of the primary objects of the Torrens system.”
○ Mirror doctrine - a person dealing with a registered land is not required to go
behind the register to determine the condition of the property. He is only charged
with notice of the burdens annotated on the tile.

● However, if the buyer is in bad faith, he only acquires what the selling co-owner could
validly transfer following the rule that “no one can give what he does not have – nemo
dat quod non habet.”

What remedy can the other co-owners avail if one of them sold his undivided share to a
stranger?

● Exercise the right of legal redemption. If 2 or more co-owners desire to exercise it, they
may only do so in proportion to the share they may have in the thing owned in common.
Reason: Public policy and benefit and convenience of the redemptioner.

Requisites of legal redemption:

1. There must be a co-ownership;

2. One of the co-owners sold his right to a stranger;
3. Sale was made before the partition of the co-owned property;
4. Right of redemption must be exercised within the period of 30 days from the notice in
writing by the vendor unless a stipulation provides another date.

Is knowledge of the actual sale a sufficient notice?

● No, a written notice of the sale is mandatory and notwithstanding actual
knowledge of a co-owner, the latter is still entitled to a written notice from the
selling co-owner. The obligation to serve written notice devolves upon the vendor
because the latter are in the best position to know the other co-owners who are
required to be notified of the sale (There is no prescribed form of notice).

Can the co-owner compel the vendee to sell back the subject portion of the thing owned in
common?
● Yes, for practical reasons that the co-ownership is built on trust. However, the vendee
cannot compel the other co-owners to redeem the portion sold.
How about in case a co-owner sold the entire property, what remedy can be availed by the other
co-owners?
● The remedy is to file an action for partition under Rule 69, ROC
📓 NOTE: An action for nullification of sale and an action of recovery of possession is not a
roper remedy because:
● The buyer already became a co-owner
● Possession of the buyer being a new co-owner will not be regarded as adverse to
the other co-owners.
 ● Buyer (now co-owner) is a legitimate proprietor and possessor in a joint
ownership of the property claimed

Sale of conjugal property without the consent of the spouse

● Void without the consent of the other spouse (see art 124 & 125 of the Family Code).
The regime of conjugal partnership of gains is a special type of partnership, where the
husband and wife place in common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from
their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through their
efforts or by chance. It is governed by the rules on contract of partnership of gains of the
Family Code (subject to what is expressly determined by the spouses in their marriage
settlements).
○ Civil Code- suppletory
○ Conflict: FC prevails

Sale of the absolute community property (ACP) without the consent of the spouse

● It is not valid in its entirety (see Articles 96 & 98 of the Family Code). ACP is a form of
co-ownership. Prior to liquidation, the interest of each spouse is INCHOATE (mere
expectancy) and does not ripen into title until it appears that there are assets after
liquidation.
○ Even insofar as the share of the consenting party.
○ “you cannot give what you do not have”

Del Campo v. CA
A and her siblings (co-owners) were co-owners of LOT 1 covered under an OCT. In 1940, A
sold her share to X, a portion that is concrete and specific. X immediately took possession of the
lot. In 1948, A and other co-owners sold 24,933 sqm LOT 1 to Y. Meanwhile, in 1951 the heirs of
X sold the lot to Z. Y caused the reconstitution of the lot in his name and thereafter subdivided
the property into small lots. one of the small lots included the portion occupied by Z (the lot he
purchased from X’s heir). Thus, Z filed for repartition, resurvey and reconveyance

Issue: Is the sale between A and X void because A sold a definite portion of the lot to X?
Ruling: The court held that, “When a thing is of no force as I do it, it shall have as much as it can
be.” The sale cannot be instantly rendered void because the binding force of a contract must be
recognized as far as it is legally possible to do so. The sale can be legally recognized since the
object of the sale did not even exceed the ideal shares held by A. As executed in the sale the
portion sold to X would be taken from A’s share. (Remember that a co-owner has full ownership
of his pro-indiviso share). Thus, the sale can be given effect to the fullest extent.
Moreover, the lot of X has already been segregated from the mother lot even before title was
issued in favor of Y. During the intervening period of 36 years from X’s purchase of the lot until
this case was filed, X’s right over the land was never questioned. Citing Vda de Cabrera v. CA,
the Court had held that where the transferees of an undivided portion of the land allowed a
co-owner to occupy a definite portion thereof and had not disturbed him for a period too long to
be ignored, the possessor is in better condition or right than the transferees. Such undisturbed
possession had the effect of a partial partition which entitles the possessor to the
definite portion which he occupies. X is entitled to the land having enjoyed uninterrupted
possession for a total of 49 years. Therefore, the sale is valid.
 Punzalan v. Boon Liat, 44 Phil. 320 [1923]

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.

Extinguishment of Co-ownership

Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership…

● To remain in a co-ownership would be to subject a person to the desires of the rest.

● The right to demand partition never prescribes as long as co-ownership exists (par.
4, Art 484).
○ So long as a co-owner expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.

Causes

1. Merger - Takes place when all the interests in a co-ownership are consolidated in one
person
● Acquired by purchase of one co-owner from other co-owner
● through the exercise of redemption
● Redemption by one co-owner inures to the benefit of all.it will entitle him to collect
reimbursement for the necessary expenses (Art 488) BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE
HIM THE OWNER OF ALL OF IT.

2. Destruction of the Thing/Right - A state of co-ownership exists only because there is

unity of the object and plurality of subjects. It is a state of fact which exists so long as the
object remains materially undivided. Hence, the moment the object of the co-ownership
is either destroyed/lost, the co-ownership ceases.

3. Prescription
GENERAL RULE: No prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner/co-heir as long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership (para 4, Art 494)
EXCEPTION: When co-ownership is REPUDIATED

Requisites of repudiation:
1. The co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to
an ouster of the other co-owners.
● Must be clear, complete and conclusive evidence that he exercised acts
of possession that amounted to the ouster or resulted in the deprivation of
the rights of the other co-owners. Example: filing by a trustee an action
against the trustor to quiet title to the property
2. Repudiation has been made known to the other co-owners
● Unequivocal notice → prescription will begin to run against the co-owner if
they do not seasonably defend it.
Specific acts which are considered acts of repudiation:
● Filing by a trustee of an action in court against the trust to quiet title, or recovery
of ownership thereof, held in possession by the former.
● The issuance of the certificate of title would constitute an open and clear
repudiation of any trust, and the lapse of more than 20 years, open and adverse
possession as owner would certainly suffice to vest title by prescription.
4. Partition
 Partition is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among
those to whom it may belong (the thing or its value).
● An action for partition implies that the thing is still owned in common.
● It is Imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches. BUT it cannot be invoked if
one has possessed the property as exclusive owner and denies the others any
shares therein. The question involved is no longer one of partition, but of
ownership.

GENERAL RULE: Each co-owner may demand partition of the thing owned in common,
insofar as his share is concerned at anytime (1st par., Art 494)

Exceptions to the right to demand partition

a. When prohibited
by agreement 📓
Must not exceed 10 years
NOTE: perpetual
prohibition is void
●
●
●
may be extended only after its expiration
If it exceeds 10 yrs, the excess is void
(within 10 yrs) may be rescinded by
agreement
b. When prohibited Must not exceed 20 yrs Par. 3, Art 494.
by donor or
testator
c. When prohibited Ex: Spouses governed by a See Family Code.
by law regime of absolute
community → Judicial Order
needed
d. When such Ex: automobile What if they want to end CO?
renders the TERMINATION under Art. 498 called “legal or
property juridical dissolution”
unserviceable (Art. ● Give the whole to one →
495) INDEMNIFICATION
● Disagreement → sale → proceeds
distributed.

📓 NOTE: No right of legal redemption because

co-ownership has ceased.

Classification of the Various Kinds of Partition

1. From the viewpoint of cause:

a. Extrajudicial (or conventional)
b. Judicial
2. From the viewpoint of permanence:
a. Provisional or temporary
b. Permanent
3. From the viewpoint of subject matter:
a. Partition of real property
b. Partition of personal property
4. From the viewpoint of forms and solemnities:
a. Partition in a judicial decree
b. Partition duly registered in the Registry of Property
c. Partition in a public instrument
d. Partition in a private instrument
e. Oral partition
Art. 496. Partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial
proceedings. Partition shall be governed by the ROC insofar as they are consistent with
this code.

1. By agreement of the parties (extrajudicial partition):

Extrajudicial Partition
● The heirs may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among
themselves by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the RD.
● In case of disagreement → ordinary action for partition

2. By judicial proceedings
● When court approval is sought or when the partition is made by the court

Must set forth in the Complaint:

● Nature and extent of his title
● An adequate description of the real estate
○ insufficiency of description may be cured even during trial
● Joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property.
○ It will not prosper unless other co-owners and interested persons are made
defendants.
○ If co-owner is dead → administrator/heir

2 stages involved in the special civil action of judicial partition and accounting under Rule 69 of
the Rules of Court (De Mesa v. CA):

1. The determination of whether co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is not

legally proscribed

● Co-ownership does not exist or partition is legally prohibited - plaintiff is not

entitled to the desired partition.
● Co-ownership does in truth exist and partition is proper - the parties may, if they
are able to agree, make partition among themselves by proper instruments of
conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon by all the
parties.

📓 NOTE: It is imperative for the court to determine ownership before a proper adjudication of
the partitioned property can be made. (Brownell v. Bautista)

2. Commences when the parties are unable to agree upon the partition ordered by
the court.
● The court appoints 3 competent and disinterested commissioners to make the
partition.

📓 NOTE: Effective only when approved by the court who is allowed to approve amend or
disapprove the report of the commissioners.

Who must participate in the partition?

● Creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part and object to its being effected
without their concurrence. (Art 497, NCC)
○ But they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been
fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to
prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain
validity.

📓NOTE:
● Assignees- refers to transferees of the interests of one or more of the co-owners.
● Creditors- whether preferred or ordinary are included
 ● The creditors must have become creditors during the existence of co-ownership, and
NOT before or after.
● They must be notified. If they did not participate, they are not allowed to impugn a
partition already executed unless they were defrauded or have previously presented a
formal opposition to prevent it.

Example: A, B, and C are the co-owners of a lot. They are indebted to X for the
construction of certain improvements thereon. In the partition proceeding, X is allowed to
impugn a partition already executed unless:
a. X was defrauded, or
b. X has previously presented a formal opposition to prevent it.

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.

Third Persons
All those who did not in any way participate or intervene in the partition are considered “third
persons.’’ Thus, also a judgment obtained by one co-owner against another co-owner will not
adversely affect a purchaser of the latter’s portion, if such purchase had been made PRIOR to
the judgment and without notice of the controversy.

What happens if the property was previously mortgaged and there was a subsequent partition?
● The partition of the thing owned in common shall not prejudice third persons, who shall
retain the rights of mortgage.
● He shall retain the rights of mortgage, servitude or any other real rights belonging to
them before the division was made.
● Personal rights shall also remain in force.

Example: A, B, and C are co-owners of a parcel of land mortgaged to M. If A, B and C should

physically partition the property, the mortgage of M’s favor still covers all the 3 lots, which
together, formerly constituted 1 parcel. If A alone had contacted an unsecured obligation, he
would of course be the only one responsible.

Effects of Partition (Art 500 & 501, NCC)

1. Mutual accounting for benefits received. (Art 500, NCC).
2. Mutual accounting of benefits received for the fruits and other benefits of the thing
belong to all the co-owners.
3. Mutual reimbursement for expenses. (Art 500, NCC)
● Mutual reimbursement for expenses, for if they share in the benefits, they should
also share in the charges.
4. Indemnity for damages in case of negligence or fraud. (Art. 500).
5. Reciprocal warranty for:
a. defects of title (or eviction);
 b. quality (or hidden defects). (Art. 501).

6. Each former co-owner is deemed to have had exclusive possession of the part allotted to
him for the entire period during which the co-possession lasted.
● Partition confers upon each, the exclusive title over his respective share.

Maglucot-aw v. Maglucot

Facts: The co-owners of Lot 1639 filed a petition to subdivide it. Consequently, the trial court
ordered the subdivision of the lots into 6 portions and the co-owners from then on occupied the
portions allotted to them until the filing of this case. There being 2 co-owners not agreeable of
the partition, the court appointed 2 commissioners. However, it does not appear on record that a
subdivision or a sketch plan was confirmed by the court. Later on, the respondents rented
portions of Lot 1639-D and built houses on their corresponding leased lots. In 1992, they
stopped paying rent and claimed ownership. Thus, the petitioner filed a complaint.

The trial court decided in favor of the petitioners. On appeal the CA reversed it declaring that
there was no partition of the lot 1639.

Petitioners argument: Respondents are estopped from claiming co-ownership over 1639-D in
view of the mutual agreement and their acquiescence to the partition, and majority of the
co-owners accepted their designated shares

RULING: Oral Partition → Equity

● The Court explained in this case that a party to a partition is also barred from voiding
partition when he has received and held a portion of the subdivided land especially in
this case where respondents have enjoyed ownership rights over their share for a long
time.
● Parties to a partition proceeding, who elected to take under partition, and who took
possession of the portion allotted to them, are estopped to question title to portion
allotted to another party.