TITLE III.

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 provision, co-ownership shall be governed by the

provisions of this Title.

Definition: Co-ownership is that state where an undivided thing or right belongs to two or more
persons. (Art. 484). It is the right of common dominion which two or more persons have in a spiritual
part of a thing which is not physically divided.

Q. Is a co-ownership granted a juridical personality by law, like a corporation?

A. No. Thus, it cannot sue in court in the name of co-ownership. The co-owners can however litigate
in their individual capacities, or, join together as litigants.

Q. What governs Co-ownership (Art. 484)?

1.) Contracts
2.) Special legal provisions
3.) Provisions of the title of co-ownership

Art. 484 provides that -- in default of contracts or special legal provisions, apply the 3rd

Q. What are the Sources of Co-ownership (or how does it arise)?

1. By law
2. By contract
3. By chance
4. By occupation
5. By succession or will

a.) By LAW –
Examples:
 party walls; party ditches;
 co-ownership of earnings by a man and a woman whose marriage is void, or who are living
together without the benefit of marriage – Art. 144, but there must be no existing legal
impediments, and valid conjugal partnership, as when either is already married to someone else.
(Juaniza v. Eugenio Jose, L-50127-28, 30 Mar.1979)

Sample Cases:
Mariano Adriano et al v. CA et al, GR 124118, Mar. 27, 2000
Property acquired by a man while living with a common law wife during the subsistence of his marriage is
conjugal property, even when the property was titled in the name of the common-law wife. In such case, a
constructive trust is deemed to have been created over the property which lawfully pertains to the
conjugal partnership of the subsisting marriage.

1
 Tumlos v. Spouses Mario Fernandez, GR 137650, Apr. 12, 2000
If the actual contribution of a party is not proved, there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of
equal shares.

b.) By Contract – Example: 2 persons buy land with their pooled money and agreed not to divide for 10
years.

c.) By Chance – Example: commixtion, confusion, hidden treasure (bet. finder & owner of property)

d.) By Occupation or occupancy – Example: 3 bros. cleared forest land declared alienable, and later
applied for a homestead patent in their names without specific division of areas; 5 fisherman fished in the
high seas and caught 1 ton of tuna; 3 cowboys caught 5 wild horses.

e.) By Succession or Will – Example: intestate heirs before partition (Javier v. Javier, 6 Phi. 493), the
successional estate being a co-ownership prior to partition.

Characteristics of Co-ownership:

1.) There must be more than one subject or owner.

2.) There is one physical whole divided into ideal (undivided) shares.
3.) Each ideal share is definite in amount, but is not physically segregated from the rest.
4.) Each co-owner must respect each other in the common use, enjoyment or preservation of the
physical whole.
o Thus, a co-owner cannot sell a definite or specific portion of the property and disregard the
interest of others. (Art. 486)

5.) Each co-owner holds an almost absolute control over his ideal share.
o Thus, he is full owner of his proportionate ideal share, its fruits and benefits which he may
alienate, assign or mortgage. He may even substitute another person in its enjoyment
except when personal rights are involved. (Art. 493)

6.) It is not a juridical person; has no juridical personality.

7.) A co-owner is in a sense a trustee for the other co-owners. Thus, he may not ordinarily acquire
exclusive ownership of the property held in common thru prescription.

Differentiate Tenancy In Common (Co-ownership) from:

1.) Joint Tenancy (see p. 319, Paras Vol. 2, 16th ed.)
2.) Partnership (see pp. 320-321, id)
3.) Conjugal Partnership (see pp. 320-321, id)

2
 NOTA BENE:

Q. A & B are co-heirs of an alluvium land (2has.) they inherited from their parents who occupied the
land with just title and in good faith for 8 years. While A was working abroad, his brother B, continue
to occupy the same land for 3 years before the riparian owner X filed an accion reivindicatoria against
B. If ownership of the land is granted in favor of B, will this also benefit A, even if he was not present
to also claim adverse, open and continuous possession of the same land?

1.) Answer: Yes. Possession of a co-owner is like that of a trustee and shall not be regarded as
adverse to the other co-owners, but in fact, as beneficial to all of them. (Salvador v. CA, SCAD
303, 1995)

Q. Doctors/friends X, Y, Z decided to buy 3,000 sq.m. lot in the province near the city, so they can use
this land as their weekend garden. X, Y & Z agreed to have 1,000sq.m. lot for each, planted with
veggies, fruit trees and flowers and erected small garden huts. By agreement, X occupied the left
portion lot, Y the middle portion, and Z the right portion lot. Is there co-ownership in this case?

2.) Answer: There is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are
already concretely determined and identifiable, even if not yet technically described. (De la Cruz v.
Cruz, L-27759, Apr. 17, 1970)

Q. Assuming that X, Y, Z are co-owners of a 3-door apartment for rent. X as collateral for his loan of
P1M from A, assigned his undivided share to the 3-d apt. to creditor-A, until X has fully paid his debt.
Can X, validly do this, even without the consent of Y & Z?

3.) Answer: Yes. 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. CA, 413 SCRA 114, 2003).

4.) A co-owner can only alienate his pro indiviso share in the co-owned property. Thus, a co-owner
does not lose his part of 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, 309 SCRA
692, 1999)

5.) A co-owner may validly lease his undivided interest to a third party. (Sanchez v. Court of
Appeals, 404 SCRA 540, 2003)

Q. In the case above, creditor-A, by virtue of the assignment by debtor/co-owner X of his share as
security/collateral for his loan to A, and upon instructions of X, creditor-A occupied and claim Apt.
door 1, as share in the co-ownership of debtor/co-owner X. Can creditor-A validly do this without
consent of co-owners Y and Z? What are the legal remedies available to Y and Z.

6.) Answer: No. Any co-owner may file an action under Art. 487 not only against a third person
but also against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive
ownership of the property (De Guia v. CA, supra)

3
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 co-ownership shall be presumed equal,
unless the contrary is proved.

Q. What is the Rule re Shares in Benefits and Charges by Co-owners?

1- The share of benefits and charges is proportional to the interest of each

co-owner.
2- Stipulation contrary to proportional sharing principle is VOID.
3- Shares or portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal,
unless the contrary is proved.

Example: X makes a Will giving his 15-ha. mango & pomelo farm to his sons A,B,C in equal shares
(5has. each). One of the provisions states that the sharing in expenses and fruits or benefits, are as
follows: A-50%; B-30%; C-20%. Is this valid?

1. One view: Valid - due to Art. 484, which provides that contracts shall govern co-ownership first.

2. Another view: Void - as Art. 485 is a specific provision making the stipulation void; it is an express
statement of public policy. Also, contracts shall not be contrary to law, morals and
public policy according to Art. 16 of the Civil Code.

 Taxes: If a co-owner paid the taxes for the common property to avoid tax delinquency, he can
compel contribution from his co-owners.

But if he has not yet paid, he cannot compel his co-owners to pay to him the overdue taxes as
these are payable not to him, but to the govt. (Jalandoni and Ramos v. Guanzon and Guanzon, L-
10423, Jan. 1958).

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.

Rule in Use of Property Owned in Common –

Gen. Rule: Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common.

Limitations:
1.) the interest of the co-ownership must not be injured or prejudiced,
2.) the other co-owners must not be prevented from using it

Study: Pardell v. Bartolome (principles of Art. 485 and 486; p. 323-324, Paras, Vol. II, 16th ed.)

4
Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.

A co-owner may bring an action for ejectment which covers actions for recovery of possession, (e.g.
forcible entry and unlawful detainer), without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-
plaintiff as this action is deemed instituted for the benefit of all.

Art. 487 is a case where 1 co-owner may bind the other co-owners.
Rule: Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.

1. Q. X, Y, Z are co-owners of a lot occupied illegally by A. Can X alone file an ejectment suit vs.
A? If X wins the ejectment suit, must Y and Z share in the expense?

A. Yes to both questions. This suit is deemed as a necessary expense to preserve the lot.

2. Q. What happens if X lost the case? Can Y and Z sue for ejectment against A?

A. No, it is barred by res judicata or by the prior judgment.

3. Q. X, Y, Z bought and co-owned a 3 ha. farm on credit. In an action by creditor to collect payment
for the farm, is it necessary that creditor sue all co-owners X,Y, Z?

A. Yes to bind Y and Z who co-owned the farm with X. Art. 487 contemplates a case when it is the
co-owner who files the suit, not when they are the defendants.

Read Cases and write case digest:

1.) Santiago et al. v. J.M. Tuason & Co. Inc., L-14223, Nov. 23, 1960 (p.327, Paras)
2.) De Guia v. CA, 413 SCRA 114, 2003
3.) Tanjuatco v. Gako, Jr. 582 SCRA 200
4.) Plasabas v. Court of Appeals, 582 SCRA 686

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.

Expenses for Preservation – a co-owner can compel others to share in preservation expenses, even
if incurred without prior notification to them. But he must notify the co-owners if practicable. (Art. 489)

Exemption from Expenses, How:

1.) A co-owner may exempt himself from duty to reimburse by renouncing (or abandoning for the
benefit of the others) so much of his undivided share equivalent to his share of the expenses
and taxes.

2.) The co-owner renouncing however does not renounce his entire interest in the co-ownership.

3.) Further, renouncing cannot be done if the co-ownership will be prejudiced.

5
What Renouncing Requires:

a.) If the renouncing is in favor of the creditor, the creditor must give his consent (for this would be
a case of adjudicacion en pago, or datio in solutum, where a debtor gives something else in
payment of his debt).

b.) If the renouncing is in favor of other co-owners, a novation (in the form of substitution of
debtor) would result – necessitating the consent of the co-owners and of the creditor.

The creditor´s consent would be needed only if the expenses have already been incurred,
otherwise, there would as yet be no creditor.

Q. What is the legal consequence if the co-owner/s who paid for the necessary expenses, or the
third party creditor, refuses to accept the offer by the other co-owner to renounce his
undivided rights to pay for the necessary expenses?

A. The co-owner cannot validly renounce, and he will be considered as a debtor to the co-owner
who paid, or to the creditor, in so far as his unpaid share is concerned.

o What Reimbursement Covers – only Necessary Expenses, like for preservation of a house in a
ruinous condition, and not for useful improvements, even if the value of property is increased, the
purpose of co-ownership not being for profit.

o Renunciation Cannot be Implied – by mere refusal to pay the proportional share. If there is
refusal to pay, but no renunciation, the creditors can still collect from the delinquent co-owner.
Here, the other co-owners need not intervene as they are not prejudiced.

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 Article
492.

Number of Co-owners who must Consent:

1.) Repairs, ejectment action - ONE (Art. 489)
2.) Alterations or acts of Ownership – ALL (Art. 491)
3.) Others, e.g. useful improvements, administration,
luxurious embellishments – Financial Majority (not numerical) Art. 492 & 489

Rules as to NECESSARY REPAIRS:

1. A co-owner can go ahead with necessary repairs even against opposition of other co-owners
because negligence of the others should not prejudice him. He may advance the funds and
recover from the others. Or he can contract with repairmen and all co-owners will be liable
proportionately to him if he advanced the payment, or to the creditors if the latter consented
that payment will be made by all co-owners.

2. Those co-owners who made unjustified opposition shall be liable if damage resulted due to
their opposition to the necessary repairs to be undertaken.

6
 3. If practicable, a co-owner must first notify his co-owners. If no such notification was made
though it was practicable to do so, the co-owners would still be liable for the necessary repairs,
for they would be liable even if they oppose it.

4. However, the co-owner may possibly present proof so as to pay less in case they were not first
notified despite being practicable to do so.

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:

1.) 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 v alue of the story
belonging to each;

2.) Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the floor or 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;

3.) 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 – where different stories belong to different persons; its still co-
ownership for there is unity in the use or ornamentation of the property, particularly in the main and
common walls, roof, stairs, etc.

The rules in this Article apply only if there is no contrary provision in the titles of ownership or
agreement.

HORIZONTAL CO-OWNERSHIP – where various units are in one plane, as when one-story units are
all set on the ground.

RULES ON PERPENDICULAR CO-OWNERSHIP:

1.) Proportionate contribution is required for the preservation of --
a. Main walls
b. Party walls
c. Roof (used by All)
d. Other things or areas used in common

2.) Each floor owner bears the expenses of his floor.

3.) Stairs are to be maintained from story to story by those who use them.
4.) Ground floor if any, is distinct from the First Story (Art. 490)