CHAPTER 4- CO-OWNERSHIP

-although the co-owners may have unequal shares in

the common property, quantitatively speaking, each coowner has a right, in a qualitative sense, as any one of the
other co-owners

Co-Ownership

-Every co-owner, jointly with the other co-owners, is the

owner of the whole and over the whole he exercises the right
of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of an
aliquot portion which is truly abstract, because until division
is effected such portion is not concretely determined (Felices
vs Colegado 35 SCRA 173)

-is that form of ownership which exists whenever an

undivided thing or right belongs to different persons
Requisites of Co-Ownership (3)
1.) There must be a plurality of owners
2.) The object of ownership must be a thing or right which
is undivided

Concretely Determined

-Thing maybe real or personal

-right constituted over a thing such as a
leasehold right

Where the portion of a parcel of land sold to a buyer

is CONCRETELY DETERMINED or IDENTIFIABLE such as when
the northern half of the land belongs to the buyer and the
southern half, to the seller, there is no co-ownership between
them over the parcel of land although their respective
portions are not technically described, or said portions are
still embraced in one and the same certificate of title (De La
Cruz vs Cruz 32 SCRA 307)

3.) Each co-owners right must be limited only to his share

of the physical whole
-prior to partition, all co-owners have only an
ideal or abstract quota in the entire undivided
thing
Characteristics of Co-Ownership
1.) There are two or more co-owners
2.) There is a single object which is not materially or
physically divided and over which and his ideal
share of the whole, each co-owner exercises
ownership, together with other co-owners
3.) There is no mutual representation by the coowners
4.) It exist for the common enjoyment of the co-owners
5.) It has no distinct legal personality
6.) Governedby the contract of the parties, otherwise
by special legal provisions and in default the
provisions of Title III on Co-Ownership

Sources of Co-Ownership
1.) By contract
-two persons shared in paying the purchase price of
a parcel of land w/ the arrangement to divide the land
equally between them

2.) By law
-easement of party walls
-absolute community of property between spouses
3.) By succession

Ownership
1

-where some of the co-owners of a property die, the

heirs of those who die become co-owners of the
property together with those who survive (Alcala vs
Alcala 35 Phil 679)
4.) By testamentary disposition or donations intervivos
-testator or donor prohibits partition of the
property for a certain period of time

their right of
survivorship or jus
accrescendi
Legal Disability or
Incapacity

Disability of the
other co-owner
cant be used

5.) By fortuitous event or by chance

-commixtion or confusion
-discovery of hidden treasure
6.) By occupancy
-when two persons catch a wild animal or fish in
the open sea
Co-ownership vs Joint ownership

Ownership of
Share

Disposition of
shares

Effect of Death

Co-Ownership
-each co-owner is
the owner of the
whole undivided
thing or right but
at the same time
of his own ideal
part thereof
Permitted to
dispose of his
share or interest in
the property
without the
consent of the
others
The survivors are
subrogated to the
rights of the
deceased
immediately upon
the death of the
latter by virtue of

Joint Ownership
-there is no
abstract share
ownership by the
co-owners, the
rights of the joint
tenants being
inseparable
NOT permitted

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
defense

Co-ownership vs Partnership

Creation

Personality

Purpose

Disposal of share

His ownership dies

with him

Co-Ownership
-may be created
without the
formalities of a
contract
-has NO juridical or
legal personality

-collective
enjoyment of the
thing
-a co-owner can
dispose of his
share WITHOUT
the consent of the
others with the
transferee
automatically

Partnership
-created only by
contract, express
or implied
-There is a juridical
personality distinct
from the partners
exists
-to obtain profits

-unless authorized,
cannot do so and
substitute another
as a partner in his
place

Mutual Agency

Distribution of
profits

Effect of death or
incapacity

becoming a coowner
-there is generally
no mutual
representation
-must be
proportional to the
respective
interests of the coowners
-NOT dissolved by
the death or
incapacity of a coowner

the value of the fishes sold therefrom is properly interpreted

as requiring the accountant to account for the NET proceeds
(Sales-Cost), and not the gross proceeds, derived from the
sales of the fishes (Cabigao vs Lim 54 Phil 237)

-partner can
generally bind the
partnership
-subject to the
stipulation of the
partners

Contrary stipulation in a contract

-Any stipulation in a CONTRACT making the
share in the benefit 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

Dissolves a
partnership

NOTE: if 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 (De Leon p.238)

Right of Any Co-owner (To Recover)/ Limitation of

Right of Co-owner

Share of Co-owners in 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
interest. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be
void.

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.

The portions belonging to the co-owners in the coownership shall be presumed EQUAL, unless contrary is
proved.

Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common

PROVIDED:

The co-owners should share in the benefit and the charges.

Example: they should share in the sales and the cost of
goods sold.

1.) He does so in accordance with the PURPOSE for which

the co-ownership is intended

A judgment requiring an owner of an undivided halfinterest in a fishery to account to his co-owner for one half of

-resort must be had to the AGREEMENT, express

or implied, of the co-owners, and in the absence
3

thereof, it is ordinarily adapted according to its

NATURE

Art 487. Anyone of the co-owners may bring an action in

ejectment

-mere tolerance on the part of the co-owners

cannot be invoked by a co-owner to legalize a
change in the use of the thing owned in
common according to the purpose for w/c it is
intended

-Art 487 authorizes any co-owner to bring, in behalf of

himself, and the other co-owners, an action in ejectment
affecting the co-ownership, and the suit may proceed without
impleading the other co-owners

2.) He does so in such a way as not to injure the interest

of the co-ownership

-Thus, where the suit is for the benefit of plaintiff alone

who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the
possession of the litigated property, and not for the coownership, the action should be dismissed (Adlawan vs
Adlawan)

3.) In such a way as not to prevent the other co-owners

from using it according to their rights

-By the same token, it is logical that a tenant, in order

to establish his status as such, must implead ALL the proindiviso co-owners. Were the courts permit an action in
ejectment to be maintained by a person having merely an
undivided interest, a judgment in favour of the defendant
would not be conclusive against the other co-owners not
parties to the suit (Arcelona vs CA 280 SCRA 20)

-A co-owner may use and enjoy the same w/o

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 coowner prevails in a case for reconveyance, it will also
redound to the benefit of the other co-owners

-Any judgment of the court in favour of the plaintiff

will benefit the other co-owners BUT if the judgment is
adverse, the same cannot prejudice the rights of the
unpleaded co-owners (Plasabas vs CA 582 SCRA 686)
-An action for ejectment under Art 487 covers all kinds
of actions for the recovery of property. It includes a suit of
forcible entry or unlawful detainer, recovery of possession,
and recovery of ownership without the necessity of joining all
the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is
deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.

Pardell vs Bartolome 23 Phil 450

..yet, in view of the fact that the record shows it to
have been proved that the defendants [MBs] husband,
occupied for four years a room or a part of the lower floor of
the same house using it as an office for the justice of the
peace, a position which he held in the capital of that
province, STRICT justice requires that he pay his sister-in-law,
the plaintiff [VP], one-half of the monthly rent w/c the said
quarters COULD have produced, had they been leased to
another person

-the ONLY purpose of an action against a co-owner

who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive
ownership of the property is to obtain recognition of the
co-ownership
4

-necessary expenses may be incurred by one

co-owner, subject to his right to collect
reimbursement from the remaining coowners. There is no doubt that redemption of
property entails a necessary expense

Binding effect of adverse decision

-An adverse decision in the action is not necessarily
res judicata with respect to the other co-owners not being
parties to the action 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 coownership are derived from the title of their predecessor-ininterest 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.

3.) Luxurios Expenses

-A co-owner who has advance expenses for the
preservation of the thing owned in common has the right to
demand reimbursement from the others in proportion to their
respective interests in the co-ownership. Until reimbursed he
holds a lien upon the subject property for the amounts due
from them.
-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

The rule is to treat all co-owners of a property as

indispensable parties where the suit involves the co-owned
property.

Renunciation by A Co-Owner of his share in the coownership

When petitioner filed an action to compel the sale of

the property, and the trial court granted the petition, the coownership was deemed terminated and the right to enjoy the
possession jointly also ceased

Anyone 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.

Expenses for Preservation, Useful Expenses

-the renunciation is in reality a case of dacion en pago

involving expenses and taxes already paid

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. Anyone 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 coownership.

-the failure or refusal of a co-owner to contribute pro

rata his share of the expenses is not tantamount to a
renunciation. A co-owner who has not waived his share in the
co-ownership may be compelled to pay his share in the cost
of its maintenance. He may NOT be COMPELLED to renounce
When renunciation not allowed?

3 Categories of Expenses:

-Waiver is not allowed if it is PREJUDICIAL to the

co-ownership. Thus, a co-owner having the means cannot

1.) Useful expenses

2.) Necessary expenses (for preservation)
5

renounce to exempt himself from the duty to contribute for

the repair of a ruinous building in danger of falling
-recall NOVATION

owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the

courts may afford adequate relief.

Art 489.Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of

one of the co-owners, but he must, if practicable, first notify
his co-owners of the necessity for such repairs. Expenses to
improve or embellish the thing shall be decided upon by a
majority as determined in Art 492.

Alteration involves:
1.) Change of the thing from the state or essence in
which the others believe it should remain; or
2.) Withdrawal of the thing from the use to which
they wish it to be intended; or
3.) Any other transformation which prejudices the
condition or substance of the thing or its
enjoyment by the others

ACTS:
1.) Preservation
2.) Administration
3.) Alteration
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

Alteration includes any act of ownership by which a

real right or encumbrance is imposed on the common
property, such as servitude, registered lease, lease of
real property more than one year, mortgage, or
pledge.

Purpose of notice: to give others the chance to

object ( I could have procured one with lesser price)

-UNANIMOUS consent of all the co-owners, not a mere

majority is necessary even if the alteration would
prove beneficial because alteration is an act of
ownership and not of mere administration
-For the purpose of making legal the alteration of the
object of the co-ownership, express consent of the
other co-owners is not essential; implied consent is
SUFFICIENT

-the lack of notice, even if practicable, would not

exempt the other co-owners from the obligation to
contribute to the expenses. But the co-owner who
advanced them has the burden of proving that they
were properly incurred
-if by reason of the unjustified opposition of the other
co-owners the necessary repairs were not undertaken,
and damages or losses resulted, those who OPPOSED
such repairs shall be LIABLE for them

-However, it has been held that the co-owner who

made the alteration would have no action against the
others for their share of the expenses. Such consent
must be express, not presumed, to entitle recovery
and the burden is upon the co-owner seeking
reimbursement to prove that such consent was given.
(Javier vs Javier)

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 co6

***If consent can be shown even if merely tacit, there

seems to be no reason why the other co-owner should
not share in the expenses. There is still consent. Article
491 does not expressly require express consent.

party, may take such measures as it may deem

proper, including the appointment of an administrator

SERIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL
LIABILITY for ALTERATION w/o consent
a.) resolution calls for a substantial change of the thing or
of the use to w/c the property owned in common has
been intended in accordance with the previous
agreement, or in the absence of the agreement, the
nature of the thing;
b.) resolution authorizes leases, loans, and other contracts
w/o the necessary security, thereby exposing the
property to serious danger to the prejudice of the
minority co-owners; and
c.) resolution upholds the continued employment of an
administrator who is guilty of fraud or negligence, etc.
in his management

a.) he loses what he has spent

b.)obliged to demolish the improvements done, and
c.) liable to pay for losses and damages the
community property or the other co-owners may
have suffered
Art 492. For the administration and better enjoyment of
the thing owned in common, the resolutions of the majority
of the co-owners shall be binding.
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.
xxxx

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 w/c may be allotted to him in the
division upon the termination of the co-ownership.

It is inherent and peculiar feature of co-ownership

that although the co-owners may have unequal shares
in the common property, quantitatively speaking, each
co-owner has the same right, in a QUALITATIVE sense,
as any of the others. (Singson vs Veloso 32 OG 870)
While alteration is more or less permanent, acts of
administration have transitory effects and have for
their purpose the preservation, preparation, and better
enjoyment of the thing and which do not affect its
essence, nature or substance

RIGHTS OF EACH CO-OWNER

-MAJORITY= atleast 51%
a.) FULL ownership of his part i.e. his undivided interest or
share in the common property
b.) FULL ownership of the FRUITS and BENEFITS pertaining
thereto

-if there is no majority or the resolution of the majority

is seriously prejudicial to the interests of the other coowners, the court, at the instance of an interested
7

free to dispose of his pro indiviso share and of the

fruits and other benefits arising from that share

c.) May ALIENATE, ASSIGN or MORTGAGE his ideal interest

or share independently of the other co-owners
d.) May SUBSTITUTE another person in the enjoyment of
his part, EXCEPT when personal rights are involved;
e.) DEMAND at anytime the PARTITION of the thing owned
in common

-the transferee does NOT acquire any specific or

determinate physical portion of the whole, his right
being limited to the portion which may be allotted to
him upon the partition of the property

A vendee w/ the knowledge that the subject property

was, at one time, co- owned by the vendor and other
persons, relying on the vendors word alone that he
was the sole owner of the property, cannot rightfully
claim that he is a buyer in good faith (Aromin vs
Floresca GR# 160994)

-As a mere part owner, he cannot alienate or

mortgage the shares of the other co-owners, for NO
ONE CAN GIVE WHAT HE DOES NOT HAVE. So, the
mortgage of the inherited property is NOT binding
against the co-heirs who never benefited (Nufable vs
Nufable 309 SCRA 692)

-A co-owner is given the legal right of redemption in

case the shares of all the other co-owners or any of
them are sold to a third person. (see Art 1620 CC)

The fact that a deed of sale appears to convey a definite or

segregated portion of the property under co-ownership that
is still undivided DOES NOT PER SE render the sale a nullity

SITUATION

-The sale is valid subject only to the condition that the

interest acquired by the vendee must be limited to the part
that may be assigned to the co-owner-vendor in the division
upon the termination of the co-ownership. (Mercado vs
Viardo 5 SCRA 859)

There are to co-owners of a land. The other co-owner sold his

undivided interest in the co-owned property to a third
person. The other co-owner redeemed that undivided
interest sold to the third person.
QUESTION:
Does that make the co-owner, who redeemed the property,
the owner of the entire property?

where the co-owner as vendor pointed out the

location and even indicated the boundaries of the
portion of a particular land he was selling without
objection, protest or complaint by the other coowners, but on the contrary acquiesced in and
tolerated such alienation and the occupation of
said portion, it was held that a factual partition or
termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was
created and barred not only the vendor but also his
heirs from asserting as against the vendee any right or
title in derogation of the deed of sale executed by the
said vendor (Pamplona vs Moreto 96 SCRA 775)

ANSWER:
Redemption by a co-owner does NOT terminate the coownership NOR give him title to the entire property subject of
the co-ownership. (Cruz vs Leis 327 SCRA 570)
-Even while an estate remains undivided, a co-owner
has the absolute and full ownership of his undivided
interest in the co-owned property and is, therefore,
8

-Even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his own, or

w/o the consent of the other co-owners, the sale is VALID
only insofar as his ideal quota is concerned UNLESS the sale
is authorized by the other co-owners.

4.) By the partition, judicial or extrajudicial, of the

respective undivided shares of the co-owners
5.) By the termination of the period agreed upon or
imposed by the donor or testator, or of the period
allowed by law
6.) By the sale by the co-owners of the thing to a third
person and the distribution of its proceeds among them

There is juridical dissolution of co-ownership when the

-The appropriate recourse of co-owners in cases where their
thing is sold, either publicly or privately, to a third
consent was not secured in a sale of the entire property as
person. (Republic vs Baltazar-Ramirez, GR# 148103)
well as in a sale merely authorized of the undivided share of
a co owner is an action for P A R T I T I O N under Rule 69
Partition
of the Rules of Court
-division between two or more persons of real or
personal property which they own in common so that
each may enjoy and possess his sole estate to the
exclusion of and without interference from others
-if a lease could be entered into partially by a co-owner
How effected?
insofar as his interest is concerned, then, he can also
1.) Extrajudicial
cancel his own lease independently of the other co2.) Judicial under Rule 69 ROC
owner
When the parties are unable to agree upon the
partition ordered by the court, it shall be effected
for the parties by the court with the assistance of
not more than 3 commissioners

Except when personal rights are involved

-in the co-ownership of a house belonging to the
children of the deceased owner and used by them as
family residence, a co-owner should not be allowed
without the consent of the others, to substitute a
complete stranger in the common use of the house

-Partition is premature when ownership of the property

is still the property is still in dispute
TWO Principal issues in partition
-First, whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner; and
second, assuming he successfully hurdles the first
issue, there is a secondary issue of how the property is
to be divided, i.e., what portion should go to w/c owner

Termination of Co-Ownership
1.) By consolidation or merger in only one of the co-owners
of all the interests of the others;
2.) By the destruction or loss of the property co-owned;
3.) By acquisitive prescription in favour of a third person or
a co-owner who repudiates the co-ownership;

TWO actions involved in partition

-may be seen to be at once an action for declaration
of co-ownership of the subject property and for
9

segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion

of the property involved.

the property as exclusive owner and possessed it for a period

sufficient to acquire it by prescription

Who can effect a partition?

Court should determine first CO-OWNERSHIP
a.) Heirs themselves extrajudicially
b.) Court in an ordinary action for partition or in the
course of administration proceedings
c.) Testator himself by an act intervivos
d.) Third person designated by the testator

A court cannot properly order partition of a property

without first making a finding that co-ownership exists

EXCEPTION to the Right to Demand for Partition

Thus, after a long possession in severalty, a partition either

by deed or by probate proceedings may be presumed. It has
been held that recitals in deeds, possession and occupation
of land, improvements made thereon for a long series of
years, and acquiescence for 60 years, furnish sufficient
evidence that there was an actual partition of land either by
deed or proceedings in the probate court which has been lost
and were not recorded (Quimpo Sr vs Abad 545 SCRA 174)

1.) When the co-owners have agreed to keep the thing

undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding
ten years;
2.) When the partition is prohibited by the donor or
testator for a certain period not exceeding twenty
years;
3.) When the partition is prohibited by law;
4.) When partition would render the thing unserviceable
for the use for which it is intended; and
5.) When another co-owner has possessed the property as
exclusive owner and for a period sufficient to acquire it
by prescription

Is Oral partition valid?

-Partition is, therefore, valid and enforceable
ALTHOUGH made orally where no third persons are involved

Demand for Partition Imprescriptible?

This implies that the action to demand partition is
imprescriptible or cannot be barred by laches, absent a clear
repudiation of the co-ownership by a co-owner clearly
communicated to the other co-owners (Del Banco vs IAC
156 SCRA 55)

Acts of Repudiation- Requisites

1.) The co owner had performed unequivocal acts of
repudiation of the co-ownership amounting to an ouster
of the cestui que trust or the other co-owners;
2.) Such positive acts of repudiation have been made
known to the cestui que trust or the other co-owners;

So, as a general rule, prescription does not run in favour of or

against a co-owner or co- heir.
Thus, the imprescriptibility of the action to demand partition
cannot be invoked when one of the co-owners has claimed
10

3.) The evidence thereon is clear, complete and conclusive

in order to establish prescription without any shadow of
doubt; and
4.) His possession is open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious

Specific Acts of Repudiation

1.) Filing by a trustee of an action in court against the
trustor to quiet title to property, or for recovery of
ownership thereof
2.) 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
3.) 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. (Pangan vs CA 166 SCRA 375)

Thus, the sole fact of a co-owner having declared the

lands in question in his name for tax purposes nor the
payment of land taxes, constitute no such unequivocal
act of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the other
co-owner and cannot constitute adverse possession as
basis for title by prescription (Laguna vs Levantino 71
Phil 566)

PRESCRIPTION- Reckoning Powent

Delima vs CA 201 SCRA
641
statute of limitations
started to run from such
issuance (of title) for the
purpose of the action
instituted

Mariategui vs CA 205
SCRA 337
Thus, where one registered
the property in question in
his name in fraud of his coheirs, prescription can only
be deemed to have
commenced from the time
the latter discovers the act
of defraudation

Art 495- the co-owners cannot demand a physical division

of the thing owned in common, when to do so would render it
UNSERVICEABLE for the use for w/c it is intended

Ingun si sir nga there is distinction between the two. In

Delima open daw ang repudiation maong ang reckoning kay
from the date of the issuance of the title while in Mariategui
daw kay thru stealth ang repudiation (why stealth?
Gipasaligan man sila nga bahinan ra lagi sila pero wala d i tu)
so mao ang reckoning point kay from the discovery of the
fraud

This article does not prevent the termination of the coownership

such as the assignment of the thing to one of
them or the sale of the thing and the distribution of the
proceeds

11