Pardell vs.

Bartolome
Facts: Petitioner Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell and respondent Matilde
Ortiz y Felin Bartolome were the existing heirs of the late Miguel Ortiz and
Calixta Felin. On 1888, Matilde and co-defendant Gaspar de Bartolome y
Escribano took it upon themselves without an judicial authorization or even
extra judicial agreement the administration of the properties of the late
Calixta and Miguel. These properties included a house in Escolta Street,
Vigan, Ilocos Sur; ahouse in Washington Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a lot in
Magallanes Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; parcels of rice land in San Julian and
Sta. Lucia; and parcels of land in Candon, Ilocos Sur.
Vicenta filed an action in court asking that the judgement be rendered
in restoring and returning to them one half of the total value of the fruits
and rents, plus losses and damages from the aforementioned properties.
However, respondent Matilde asserted that she never refused to give the
plaintiff her share of the said properties. Vicenta also argued that Matilde
and her husband, Gaspar are obliged to pay rent to the former for their
occupation of the upper story of the house in Escolta Street.
Issue: Whether or not Matilde and Gaspar are obliged to pay rent for their
occupation of the said property
Held: No. The Court ruled that the spouses are not liable to pay rent. Their
occupation of the said property was a mere exercise of their right to use the
same as a co-owner. One of the limitations on a co-owners right of use is
that he must use it in such a way so as not to injure the interest of the other
co-owners. In the case at bar, the other party failed to provide proof that by
the occupation of the spouses Bartolome, they prevented Vicenta from
utilizing the same.
Resuena vs. CA
Facts:
Private Respondent is the co-owner and overseer of certain parcels
of land located in Pooc, Talisay, Cebu, designated as Lots Nos. 2587 and
2592 of the Talisay-Manglanilla Estate. He developed portions of lots nos.
2587 and 2592 occupied by him into a resortas the Borromeo Beach Resort.
In his desire to expand and extend the facilities of the resort that he
established on the subject properties respondent demanded that
petitioners vacate the property. Petitioners however refused to vacate their
homes. Hence, respondent filed a complaint for ejectment with the MTC

against the petitioners. The MTC dismissed the complaint on the ground
that respondent had no right to evict petitioners therefrom, RTC reversed
the formers decision, the CA affirmed. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether the private respondent has the right to eject the
petitioners.
Held:
Yes. Article 487 of the Civil Code, which provides simply that any
one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment, 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 vs. 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.
Acabal vs. Acabal
Facts:
Villaner Acabals parents owned a parcel of land situated in Barrio
Tanglad, Manjuyod, Negros Oriental. By a Deed of Absolute Sale, his parents
transferred for Php 2,000 ownership of the said land to him, who was then
married to Justiniana Lipajan.
Sometime after the foregoing transfer, it appears that Villaner
became a widower. Subsequently, he executed a deed conveying the same
property in favor of Leonardo.
Villaner was later to claim that document now appears to be a
deed of absolute sale. Thus, he filed a complaint against Leonardo and
Ramon Nicolas in turn conveyed the property, for annulment of the deeds
of sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint, the appellate court reversed
the decision of the trial court. Hence, this petition.
Issue: