Trinidad vs.

Ricafort

Facts
Doroteo Ricafort, claiming to be the owner of the property described
in the complaint, sold it to Carolina Gonzales Calderon. Calderon resold
the property to Doroteo Ricafort.

The Doroteor died intestate, and without having made any

conveyance or other disposition of this property.

Lucas Ricafort, Maria Salomé Vírgenes, and Juana Ricafort were in

possession of the property from the death of Doroteo Ricafort in 1896 to
the death of Maria Salomé Vírgenes in 1900, and since that time Juana
Ricafort and Lucas Ricafort, together with Augusto Ricafort, one of the
heirs of Maria Salomé Vírgenes, have been in possession of the property.
During all the time elapsed since the death of Doroteo Ricafort, Lucas
Ricafort has administered the property and made improvements thereon,
paying therefor with his own money

Issue
WON the co-owners is liable to pay for the expenses incurred by
Lucas

Ruling
YES. All the joint owners of the property living thereon, and repairs
and improvements having been made during this time by one of such
joint owners, we think the evidence is sufficient to show a consent to the
making of such repairs by the owners other than Lucas Ricafort, and that
they must share in the expense thereof, especially in view of the fact that
there is evidence in the case that the buildings which he repaired were in
a ruinous condition.
 Hibberd vs Estate of McLeroy

Facts
The mining property mentioned in the contract was operated f or the
first year under the terms of the contract, and as a result of such operation
the claimant, Mr. Hibberd, suffered a loss.

It is further agreed by and between the parties hereto that the said L.
O. Hibberd shall have the exclusive right to the possession of the said
mining claims during the period of one year to commence from date of
this instrument and shall have the sole and exclusive right to exploit the
same and take all the profits of such exploitation unto himself as his own
and exclusive individual property, and for that purpose shall have the
right to make use of all the improvements now in and upon any of the
above mentioned mining claims.

It is further agreed by and between the parties hereto that if the said J.
P. McElroy at the expiration of one year from the date of this instrument
should not be in sufficiently good health to be himself upon said claims
and assume comanagement thereof with the said L. O. Hibberd, then the
said L. O. Hibberd shall continue in the exclusive possession, occupation,
management and exploitation of the said mining claims and their
improvements and after paying all expenses of the exploitation shall pay
one-half of the net proceeds monthly to the said J. P. McElroy.

Issue
WON McElroy should contribute his shares of such work

Ruling
YES. Article 395 of the Civil Code provides: "Every coöwner shall
have the right to oblige the participants to contribute to the cost of
keeping the thing or right held in common. Only the party renouncing his
share in the ownership can exempt himself from this obligation.
 Melencio vs. Dy Tiao Lay

Facts
Plaintiffs brought the present action against the defendant for the
recovery of the possession of a parcel of land.

Defendamts alleged that they are occupying the traact of land by

virtue of a contract of lease in favor of his predecessors.

That one of the original co-owners actually recognized and ratified

the existence and validity of the contract aforesaid by virtue of the
execution of a public document. Plaintiffs also alleged that Ruperta
Garcia was not one of the coowners of the land in question; that the
persons who signed the alleged contract of lease never represented
themselves as being the sole and exclusive owners of the land subject to
the lease as alleged by the defendant.

It appears from the evidence that the land in question was originally
owned by one Julian Melencio. He died prior to the year 1905 leaving his
widow, Ruperta Garcia, and his five children. The heirs of Julian
executed a contract of lease of the land in favor of one Yap Kui Chin.

Shortly after the execution of the lease, the lessee took possession of
the parcel in question. During that time the property was held in common
by the heirs of Julian Melencio and Ruperta Garcia.

Issue
WON such alterations in the contract of lease is valid

Ruling
YES. Although article 397 of the Civil Code which provides that
"none of the owners shall, without the consent of the others, make any
alterations in the common property even though such alterations might be
advantageous to all."

Since none of the coöwners objected to such alterations until over

twenty years after the execution of the contract of lease.
 Lopez vs Martinez

Facts
Francisco Martinez and the defendant, Pedro Martinez, his son, were
the owners as tenants in common of two separate parcels of land in Calle
Dulumbayan, in the city of Manila, each being the owner of an undivided
one-half of each of said tracts of land. On the 26th day of December,
1902, Francisco Martinez conveyed to the plaintiff his undivided half
interest in both said tracts of land. This deed contained a clause giving
Martinez the right to repurchase the property within one year from
December 26, 1902. He did not repurchase it, and on the 28th of
December, 1903, the plaintiff caused the proper marginal entry to be
made upon the books in the registry of property in which registry the
conveyance had been recorded, and afterwards brought this action in
March, 1904, asking for a partition of the two lots of land, between
himself and the defendant.

Issue
WON Martinez has the right to convey his share of the property

Ruling
YES. Article 399 of the Civil Code is as follows: "Every coöwner
shall have full ownership of his part and in the fruits and benefits derived
therefrom, and he therefore may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in
question. But the effect of the alienation or mortgage, with regard to the
coöwners, shall be limited to the share which may be awarded him in the
division on the dissolution of the community."

The fact that the defendant acquired title to all of them by inheritance
from his mother did not make them physically one tract of land, so that a
conveyance by the son of his undivided, half interest in one of these lots
would amount to a conveyance of a divided part of a tract of land held by
him in common with his father.
 Ramirez vs Bautista

Facts
Moises Ramirez, who died intestate in February, 1900, was married
twice. By the first marriage he had 5 children and 3 by the second.

At the time of his death he left two fish ponds. The children of the
first marriage sold the two fish ponds the only surviving child of the
second marriage was not made a party to the sale.

Issue
WON the sale of the share of isabel the only surviving child of the
second marriag is valid

Ruling
NO. "Every coöwner shall have full ownership of his part and in the
fruits and benefits derived therefrom, and he therefore may alienate,
assign, or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its
enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question. But the effect of the
alienation or mortgage, with regard to the coöwners, shall be limited to
the share which may be awarded him in the division on the dissolution of
the community." (Art. 399, Civil Code.)
 Tuazon vs Tuazon

Facts
Tuason siblings held a parcel of land in common, each holding 1/3 of
an undivided portion of the land. One of the siblings wanted to share her
1/3 portion of the property. Said portion was sold to a company.

The three coowners agreed to have the whole parcel subdivided into
small lots and then sold, the proceeds of the sale to be later divided
among them.

One of the siblings decided to rescind said contract and she asked that
the property held in common be partitioned.

Issue
WON some of the provisions of the contract violate article 400 of the
civil code

Ruling
NO. The obligation imposed in the contract to preserve the co-
ownership until all the lots shall have been sold, is a mere incident to the
main object of dissolving the co-owners.
 Garcia De Lara vs Gonzales De Lara

Facts
The suit was an action for the partition of a tract of land, being the
undivided half of the hacienda de Angono, situated in the Province of
Rizal, and which the plaintiff and defendants in the suit had inherited
from their deceased father, Don Eugenio Gonzales de Lara ; that Eugenio
Gonzales de Lara had acquired this undivided half interest by purchase
from Doña Dominga Santa Ana.

Issue
What whould happen if the estate cannot be divided without great
inconvenience to the parties interested?

Ruling
the court may order it assigned to one of the parties, provided he pays
to the other party such sum of money as the commissioners judge
equitable. But if no one of the parties interested will take such assignment
and pay such sum, the court shall order the commissioners to sell such
estate at public or private sale. Where the estate can not be divided, the
court may direct the sale of the property at public or private sale. At this
public or private sale third parties may become the purchasers.
 Cortez vs Olivia

Facts
The plaintiffs are the heirs of one Pio Oliva, deceased, who during his
lifetime was the owner of a large machine used for grinding sugar cane;
he was also the joint owner with his brother, Florencio Oliva, the
defendant herein, of another smaller machine used for the same purpose.

Due to the revolution against spain the machines in question were

abandoned in a hacienda. Pio died leaving his heirs. Florenio Oivia
returned to the location of the machines and took it. The large machine
which was owned by Pio was fixed and used to grind sugar canes.

Issue
WON Florencio’s claim of ownership over the small machine has
already prescribed

Ruling
NO. This machine having been originally the joint property of the
defendant and his brother, the fact that he held it in his possession for a
long period of years, and exercised acts of ownership with reference to it
does not afford a sufficient ground for the inference that he had
possession under a claim of exclusive ownership, and adverse to the
claims of his brother's estate. Ordinarily possession by one joint owner
will not be presumed to be adverse to the others, but will, as a rule, be
held to be for the benefit of all.
 Pardell vs Bartolome

Facts
Plaintiff, Vicenta Ortiz, and the defendant, Matilde Ortiz, are the duly
recognized natural daughters of the spouses Miguel Ortiz and Calixta
Felin y Paula who died.

Calixta Felin, prior to her death, executed, on August 17, 1876, a

nuncupative will in Vigan whereby she made her four children, named
her sole and universal heirs of all her property; that, only 2 of the children
survived.

Defendant without judicial authority or extrajudicial agreement

enjoyed of the said properties. And had been delaying the partition of said
properties despite repeated demands of the plaintiff.

Issue
WON Vicenta should be payed the rent of one of the building that has
been rented to other persons

Ruling
YES. Article 394 of the Civil Code prescribes: "Each co-owner may
use the things owned in common, provided he uses them in accordance
with their object and in such manner as not to injure the interests of the
community nor prevent the coowners from utilizing them according to
their rights."

Each co-owner of realty held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the
whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation
than that he shall not injure the interests of his coowners, for the reason
that, until a division be made, the respective part of each holder can not
be determined and every one of the coowners exer cises, together with his
other coparticipants, joint owner ship over the pro indiviso property, in
addition to his use and enjoyment of the same.