12.

Aguilar v Court of Appeals

GR No. 76351

October 29, 1993

Bellosillo J.,

FACTS:

Petitioner Virgilio and respondent Senen are brothers, Virgilio is the youngest of
seven children of the late Maximiano Aguilar, while Senen is the fifth. On October 28
1969, the two brothers purchased a house and lot in Parañaque where their father could
spend and enjoy his remaining years in a peaceful neighborhood. At first, the brothers
agreed that Virgilio's share in the co-ownership was two-thirds while that of Senen was
one-third. By virtue of a written memorandum Virgilio and Senen agreed that their
interests in the house and lot should be equal, with Senen assuming the remaining
mortgage obligation of the original owners with the SSS in exchange for his possession
and enjoyment of the house together with their father. Since Virgilio was then
disqualified from obtaining a loan from SSS, the brothers agreed that the deed of sale
would be executed and the title registered in the meantime in the name of Senen. It was
further agreed that Senen would take care of their father and his needs since Virgilio and
his family were staying in Cebu. After Maximiano Aguilar died, petitioner demanded
from private respondent that the latter vacate the house and that the property be sold and
proceeds thereof divided among them, but respondent refused. Petitioner filed an action
to compel the sale of the house and lot so that they could divide the proceeds between
them. In his complaint, petitioner prayed that the proceeds of the sale, be divided on the
basis of two-thirds (2/3) in his favor and one-third (1/3) to respondent. Petitioner also
prayed for monthly rentals for the use of the house by respondent after their father died.
Respondent alleged that he had no objection to the sale as long as the best selling price
could be obtained; that if the sale would be effected, the proceeds thereof should be
divided equally; and, that being a co-owner, he was entitled to the use and enjoyment of
the property. The trial court found him and plaintiff to be co-owners of the house and lot,
in equal shares on the basis of their written agreement. The trial court also upheld the
right of plaintiff as co-owner to demand partition. Since plaintiff could not agree to the
amount offered by defendant for the former's share, the trial court held that this property
should be sold to a third person and the proceeds divided equally between the parties.
Petitioner now comes to us alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that
the motion of defendant through counsel to cancel the pre-trial was dilatory in character
and in remanding the case to the trial court for pre-trial and trial.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court correctly rendered the default judgment against
respondent, when it found him and plaintiff to be co-owners of the house and lot, in equal
shares on the basis of their written agreement.

HELD:

We uphold the trial court in ruling in favor of petitioner, except as to the effectivity of the
payment of monthly rentals by respondent as co-owner which we here declare to
commence only after the trial court ordered respondent to vacate in accordance with its
order of 26 July 1979. Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be
obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and that each co-owner may demand at any time
partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is concerned. Corollary to
this rule, Art. 498 of the Code states that whenever the thing is essentially, indivisible and
the co-owners cannot agree that it be, allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the
others, it shall be sold and its proceeds accordingly distributed. This is resorted to (1)
when the right to partition the property is invoked by any of the co-owners but because
of the nature of the property it cannot be subdivided or its subdivision would prejudice
the interests of the co-owners, and (b) the co-owners are not in agreement as to who
among them shall be allotted or assigned the entire property upon proper reimbursement
of the co-owners. However, being a co-owner respondent has the right to use the house
and lot without paying any compensation to petitioner, as he may use the property
owned in common long as it is in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended
and in a manner not injurious to the interest of the other co-owners. Since petitioner has
decided to enforce his right in court to end the co-ownership of the house and lot and
respondent has not refuted the allegation that he has been preventing the sale of the
property by his continued occupancy of the premises, justice and equity demand that
respondent and his family vacate the property so that the sale can be effected
immediately. Respondent should pay a rental of P1,200.00 per month, with legal interest;
from the time the trial court ordered him to vacate, for the use and enjoyment of the other
half of the property appertaining to petitioner. When petitioner filed an action to compel
the sale of the property and the trial court granted the petition and ordered the ejectment
of respondent, the co-ownership was deemed terminated and the right to enjoy the
possession jointly also ceased. Thereafter, the continued stay of respondent and his family
in the house prejudiced the interest of petitioner as the property should have been sold
and the proceeds divided equally between them. To this extent and from then on,
respondent should be held liable for monthly rentals until he and his family vacate.