Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership whole he exercises the right of dominion.

The
of an undivided thing or right belongs to different underlying reason for this is that until a division is
persons. made, the respective share of each cannot be
determined. However, with respect to the whole or the
In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co- pro indiviso property, every co-owner exercises joint
ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this ownership together with his co-participants.19 For this
Title. reason, mutual respect is observed by the co-owners in
regard to the use, enjoyment and preservation of the
Definition thing as a whole. (Article 486)
Right of common dominion which two or more persons
have a part of a thing, not materially or physically Effect of Division or Partition
divided (Sanchez Roman) Once partition is effected or once the property is
subdivided and distributed among the co-owners, the
There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an co-ownership is terminated.
undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. Thus, there is no co-ownership when the different
portions owned by different people are already
Requisites of Co-ownership concretely determined and separately identifiable,
Plurality of Subjects - ownership of an undivided thing even if not yet technically described.
or right belongs to different persons. Thus, co- Where the portion belonging to the parties has been
ownership is a manifestation of the private right of identified and localized, the right of legal redemption
dominion, where in lieu of its being exercised by the cannot be invoked.
owner in an inclusive manner over things or rights,
there are two or more owners A Co-Owner Cannot Claim A Definite Portion
Unity of the Object - there is a single object which is A co-owner cannot point to specific portion of the
not materially divided, and which is the element which property owned in common as his own because his
binds the subjects (juridical concept of co-ownership). share therein remains intangible.
Each co-owner of property which is held pro indiviso During the existence of the co-ownership, therefore, no
exercises his rights over the whole property and may co-owner can claim title to any definite portion of the
use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than community property until the partition thereof, and prior
that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners. to the partition, all that the co-owner has is an ideal or
The underlying rationale is that until a division is made, abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire land
the respective share of each cannot be determined and or thing.
every co-owner exercises, together with his co-
participants, joint ownership over the pro indiviso Co-ownership Distinguished from Partnership
property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the  As to creation: Co-ownership may exist without the
same. necessity of a contract. A co-ownership is created
Recognition of Ideal Share - determines the rights and not only by reason of contracts. A partnership, on
obligations of the co-owners. It is a basic principle in the other hand, requires the existence of a contract in
civil law that before a property owned in common is order to arise. The definition by the Civil Code of a
actually partitioned, all that the co-owner has is an ideal partnership refers to it as a contract.
or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire  As to personality: A co-ownership does not possess
property a juridical personality distinct from the co-
owners. On the
Dual Nature of Ownership in Co-Ownership
 Ownership Over the Ideal Share - There exists in
favor of each co-owner a portion which is definite in
amount but not physically and actually identified, the
same being merely ideal. With respect to this ideal or
abstract share, a co-owner exercises absolute ownership
and he may, therefore, dispose of it in any manner he
pleases. (Article 493)
 Joint Ownership Over the Whole - each co-owner is
also considered as the owner of the whole and over the
other hand, the partnership has a juridical personality accidentally discovered by a stranger, who is not a
separate and distinct from that of each of the partners. trespasser, on the land of another
(1) As to purpose: In order to constitute a partnership, it is
important that there must be an agreement to divide the Rules Governing Co-Ownership
profits among the partners. Hence, the idea of common profi  Contract - co-ownership is to be governed primarily by
t that may be derived from the things or services contributed the contract between the parties and, in default thereof,
to the partnership is an essential feature thereof. This is by the provisions of Articles 484 to 501 of the New
absent, however, in co-ownership, which is only for the Civil Code
purpose of common enjoyment of the thing owned in  Special Provisions of Law - such provisions shall
common. primarily govern the co-ownership while the provisions
(2) As to duration: In co-ownership, an agreement not to of Articles 484 to 501 shall be applied only in a
divide the property for more than ten (10) years is not valid suppletory character. In the property regime known as
with respect to the excess; whereas, in partnership there is no the “absolute community,” for example, the spouses are
limit as to the time of its existence. considered co-owners of all property brought into and
(3) As to the effect of death: In co-ownership, the death of a acquired during the marriage which are not otherwise
coowner does not dissolve the co-ownership, but in excluded from the community property either by the
partnership the death of a partner brings about the provisions of the Family Code or by the marriage
dissolution of the partnership. settlement. If the regime of absolute community applies
(4) As to the disposal of share: In co-ownership, a co- to the spouses by default pursuant to the provisions of
owner may freely dispose of his share35 but a partner has no Article 75 of the Family Code, then the provisions of
power of disposal so as to make the buyer a partner unless the Family Code on absolute community shall primarily
agreed upon by all the other partners govern and the provisions of the Civil Code on co-
(5) As to the power to act with third persons: In co- ownership shall apply in a suppletory manner. The
ownership, a co-owner does not represent the co-ownership applicability of the provisions of the Civil Code on co-
but a partner usually represents the partnership and may bind ownership to the regime of absolute community is
the partnership recognition that this regime is a special kind of co-
ownership. Under the provisions of the Civil Code on
Sources of Co-ownership co-ownership, it is provided that if the co-ownership is
(1) By law: created by law, such kind of coownership shall be
(a) Co-ownership will arise if by the will of their owners two governed primarily by the special provisions of law
things of the same kind or different kinds are Mixed. Co- creating it and the provisions of the Civil Code on co-
ownership will likewise arise if by the will of only one ownership shall only apply in a suppletory manner
owner, but in good faith, two things of the same or different
kinds are mixed or confused. Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as
(b) When a man and woman who are capacitated to marry well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their
each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the
wife without the benefi t of marriage or under a void contrary shall be void.
marriage, the property acquired by both of them through
their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co- The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-
ownership. In cases of cohabitation not falling under Article ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is
147 of the Family Code, only the properties acquired by both proved.
of the parties though their actual joint contribution of money,
property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in Share in Benefi ts and Charges
proportion to their respective contributions.  Determining the Ideal Share of Each Co-Owner -
(2) By contract: An agreement to keep the thing undivided The share of each co-owner in the co-ownership is that
for a certain period, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. provided for in the law governing such kind of co-
This term may be extended by a new agreement. ownership. For example, in confusion or commixtion
(3) By succession: Where there are two or more heirs, the that occurs through chance or through the will of one of
whole the parties acting in good faith, the share of each co-
estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in owner is in proportion to the part belonging to him,
common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or
deceased. The testator may likewise prohibit the partition of confused.54 Also, the share of the finder, who is not a
the estate among the heirs for a period not to exceed twenty trespasser, and the owner of the property where the
(20) years. hidden treasure is found by chance, is provided for by
(4) By fortuitous event or chance: Co-ownership will arise law, in that, each shall be entitled to one-half of such
if two things of the same kind or different kinds are mixed treasure. If the source of co-ownership, however, is
by chance and the things are not separable without injury. contract, the share of the co-owner in the thing itself
(5) By occupancy: As when two or more persons catch a may depend on their agreement and, in default thereof,
wild pig or get forest products or when a hidden treasure is it is presumed to be equal in the absence of proof to the
 contrary. In the absent of such contrary agreement, it is of enjoyment by each co-owner is limited by a similar
understood that the share of each co-owner shall be in right of the other co-owners. Thus, a co-owner cannot
proportion to their respective contributions. devote common property to his exclusive use to the
 Determining the Share In Benefi ts and Charges - if prejudice of the co-ownership
the co-owners have agreed that their share in the co-  Determining the Purpose - To determine the purpose
ownership shall be in proportion to their respective for which the property held in common is intended the
contributions, then all benefi ts and charges shall agreement, express or implied, of the parties will first
likewise be divided among them in proportion to their govern. In default of such an agreement, it is understood
share in the capital. that the thing is intended for that use for which it is
 Any Stipulation To The Contrary Is Void ordinarily adapted according to its nature
Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action
common, provided he does so in accordance with the in ejectment.
purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not
to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the Action in Ejectment
other co-owners from using it according to their rights.  Scope of Term “Ejectment” - the term, “action in
The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by ejectment,” not only includes a suit of forcible entry
agreement, express or implied. (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio), but all
kinds of actions for the recovery of possession,
Right Over the Entire Property including an accion publiciana and a reinvindicatory
 Nature of Co-Owner’s Right Over the Entire Thing action
or Right - A co-owner of an undivided thing or right is  Action Must Be Instituted For All - if the co-owner
an owner of the whole and over the whole he exercises expressly states that he is bringing the case only for
the right of dominion. However, with respect to the himself, the action should not be allowed to prosper.
whole, a co-owner exercises, together with his  Action Available Even Against A Co-Owner - Any
coparticipants (or co-owners) joint ownership over the co- owner may fi le an action under Article 487 not only
co-owned property, the reason being that until a against a third person, but also against another co-owner
division is made, The respective share of each cannot as who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive
yet be determined. the right of enjoyment by each co- ownership of the property. In the latter case, however,
owner is limited by a similar right of the other co- the only purpose of the action is to obtain recognition of
owners the co-ownership. The plaintiff cannot seek exclusion of
 Use of the Thing Owned in Common - A co-owner the defendant from the property because as co-owner he
may use the entire thing so long as the use is in has a right of possession. In other words, the plaintiff
accordance with the purpose for which it is intended cannot recover any material or determinate part of the
and in a manner not injurious to the interest of the other property. This is based on the principle that a co-owner
co-owners. Each co-owner of property held pro indiviso has no right to demand a concrete, specifi c or
exercises his rights over the whole property and may determinate part of the thing owned in common because
use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than until division is effected his right over the thing is
that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners, represented only by an ideal portion
the reason being that until a division is made, the  Effect of Judgment Upon the Other Co-Owners - any
respective share of each cannot be determined and adverse judgment cannot prejudice the rights of the
every co-owner exercises, together with his co- unimpleaded co-owners. However, any judgment of the
participants joint ownership over the pro indiviso court in favor of the coowner will benefit the others
property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the
same Art. 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the
 Pardell v. Bartolome - With regard to that part other coowners to contribute to the expenses of
occupied by Matilde as dwelling, no rental can be preservation of the thing or right owned in common and
collected inasmuch as she, being the co-owner, is to the taxes. Any one of the latter may exempt himself
entitled to use the same. With respect, however, to that from this obligation by renouncing so much of his
portion occupied by the husband, Bartolome, the latter undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of
must pay one-half of the rentals which said quarters the expenses and taxes. No such waiver shall be made if it
could and should have produced had they have been is prejudicial to the co-ownership.
rented to strangers, inasmuch as he is not a co-owner of
the property. Art. 489. Repairs for preservation may be made at the
 Limitations on the Right to Use - (1) such use must be will of one of the co-owners, but he must, if practicable, fi
in accordance with the purpose for which the thing is rst notify his co-owners of the necessity for such repairs.
intended; (2) such use must be without prejudice to the Expenses to improve or embellish the thingvshall be
rights of the other co-owners; and (3) such use must not decided upon by a majority as determined in Article 492.
be in a manner as to prevent the other co-owners from
using the thing according to their own right. The right
Expenses for Preservation  Limitation on the Exercise of the Option of
 Right To Demand Contribution - The law grants each Renunciation - Article 488 prohibits the exercise of the
co-owner the right to demand contribution from the option of renunciation if it is prejudicial to the interest
other co-owners for any and all expenses he incurred of the co-ownership.
for the purpose of preserving the thing or right owned in  Includes Payment of Taxes - Under Article 488, the
common, even if the repairs for preservation were made expenses for the preservation of the thing include
without the consent of the other coowners. under payment of taxes due on the property owned in
Article 489, a co-owner who desires to make the common, i.e., real estate tax on the land owned in
necessary repairs is not required to secure the consent of common. The expenses for the preservation of the thing
all the coowners. What the law requires is that he must, also include taxes.
if practicable, notify the other co-owners of the
necessity of such repair prior to undertaking the same. Art. 490. Whenever the different stories of a house belong
Consequently, any opposition on the part of the other to different owners, if the titles of ownership do not
co-owners for the making of such necessary repairs specify the terms under which they should contribute to
does not deprive the co-owner who made the advances the necessary expenses and there exists no agreement on
from demanding contributions from the other co- the subject, the following rules shall be observed:
owners.
 When Notice Required - a co-owner who desires to (1) The main and party walls, the roof and the other
undertake such repair is not required to secure the things used in common, shall be preserved at the expense
consent of the other co-owners. The giving of notice, of all the owners in proportion to the value of the story
however, is required only if the same is “practicable” belonging to each;
given the circumstances by which the repair is to be (2) Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the
undertaken. Hence, if the repairs are urgent and any floor of his story; the fl oor of the entrance, front door,
delay will be detrimental to the interest of the co- common yard and sanitary works common to all, shall be
ownership, prior notifi cation is no longer necessary and maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata;
a coowner may already undertake such repairs without (3) The stairs from the entrance to the fi rst story shall be
need of giving prior notice to the other co-owners. maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata, with
 Effect of Failure to Comply With the Notice the exception of the owner of the ground fl oor; the stairs
Requirement - According to Senator Tolentino, such from the fi rst to the second story shall be preserved at
failure does not deprive the co-owner who incurred the the expense of all, except the owner of the ground floor
expenses of the right to recover the proportionate shares and the owner of the fi rst story; and so on successively.
of the other co-owners in the expenses. The only effect
of such failure is to place upon the co-owner who Different Stories Belonging to Different Owners
incurred the expenses the burden of proving the  Applicability of Article 490 - applies to a situation
necessity of the repairs and the reasonableness of the where the house consists of several stories and the
expenses. different stories belong to different owners. This article
 Renunciation By A Co-Owner - While the other co- fi nds no application to a condominium project
owners can be compelled to contribute proportionately  Rules Governing Necessary Expenses - (1) if the
to the expenses incurred for the purpose of preserving manner of contribution is specifi ed in the title of
the thing or right owned in common, they are given by ownership, the same shall govern; (2) in the absence of
law an option of “renouncing so much of (their) such provision in the title of ownership, the agreement
undivided interest as may be equivalent to (their) share of the parties shall control; or (3) in the absence of such
of the expenses and taxes,” in lieu of paying their agreement, the following rules shall be observed:
proportionate contribution to such expenses.
 Requirement of Consent in Renunciation - From the (a) The main and party walls, the roof and the other things
language of Article 488, it appears that the consent of used in common, shall be preserved at the expense of all the
the co-owner who made the advances is not required owners in proportion to the value of the story belonging to
when a co-owner opts to renounce, in lieu of paying his each.
share in the expenses. Note that the law gives such (b) The fl oor of the entrance, front door, common yard and
option only to the co-owner who may be compelled to sanitary works common to all, shall be maintained at the
contribute to such expenses without requiring the expense of all the owners pro rata.
consent of the coowner who made the advances. (c) Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the floor of
Senator Tolentino and Justice J.B.L. Reyes consider his story.
this, however, as a juridical error. According to these (d) The stairs from the entrance to the fi rst story shall be
two eminent civilists, since the renunciation is intended maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata, with the
as payment for expenses already made, it is in the exception of the owners of the ground fl oor, the stairs from
nature of dation in payment and should, therefore, the first to the second story shall be preserved at the expense
require the consent of the creditor, i.e., the co-owner of all, except the owner of the ground floor and the owner of
who made the advances. the fi rst story; and so on successively
 damage to or destruction of the project
 Condominium - an interest in real property consisting
of a separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial  Assessment as Lien Upon Unit - An assessment upon
or commercial building and an undivided interest in any condominium made in accordance with a duly
common directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is registered declaration of restrictions shall be an
located and in other common areas of the building. obligation of the owner thereof at the time the
“Common areas” in a condominium project refer to the assessment is made. The amount of any such assessment
entire project excepting all units separately granted or plus any other charges thereon, such as interests, cost
held or reserved; while “unit” means a part of the (including attorney’s fees) and penalties, as such as may
condominium project intended for any type of be provided for in the declaration of restrictions, shall
independent use or ownership, including one or more be and become a lien upon the condominium assessed
rooms or spaces located in one or more fl oors (or part when the management body causes a notice of
or parts of fl oors) in a building or buildings and such assessment to be registered with the Registered of
accessories as may be appended thereto Deeds of the city or province where such condominium
 Nature of Ownership in Condominium Projects - project is located. Such lien shall be superior to all other
With respect to the condominium unit, the same is liens registered subsequent to the registration of said
owned separately and individually by the unit owner. notice of assessment except real property tax liens and
With respect, however, to the landand to the common may be enforced in the same manner provided for by
areas in the condominium project, there are two law for the judicial or extra-judicial foreclosure of
situations contemplated in Sections 2 and 5 of the mortgages of real property.
Condominium Act. The first contemplates of a situation
where the land and other common areas in the Art. 491. None of the co-owners shall, without the consent
condominium project are held by the owners of separate of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in
units as co-owners thereof. In such a situation, there is common, even though benefits for all would result
co-ownership among the unit owners, with respect to therefrom. However, if the withholding of the consent by
the undivided interest in the land and common areas. one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the
The second contemplates of a situation where the land common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief.
and other common areas are to be held by the
condominium corporation, in which case, the owners of Art. 492. For the administration and better enjoyment of
the individual units are automatically considered the thing owned in common, the resolutions of the
members or shareholders of the corporation. Under the majority of the co-owners shall be binding.
provisions of the Condominium Act, the undivided
interest in the common areas or the shareholding in the There shall be no majority unless the resolution is
common areas is inseparable from the unit to which it is approved by the co-owners who represent the controlling
only an appurtenant. interest in the object of the coownership.
 Rules Governing Expenses on the “Common Areas”
- The owner of the project is required by law, prior to Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of
the conveyance of any condominium therein, to register the majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in
a declaration of restrictions relating to such project, the property owned in common, the court, at the instance
which restrictions shall constitute a lien upon each of an interested party, shall order such measures as it
condominium in the project, and shall inure to and bind may deem proper, including the appointment of an
all condominium owners in the projects. administrator.

(a) For maintenance of insurance policies insuring Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of
condominium owners against loss by fi re, casualty, liability, the coowners, and the remainder is owned in common,
workmen’s compensation and other insurable risks, and for the preceding provisions shall apply only to the part
bonding of the members of any management body; owned in common.
(b) Provisions for maintenance, utility, gardening and other
services benefiting the common areas, for the employment of Acts of Alteration
personnel necessary for the operation of the building, and  Rule as to “Acts of Alterations” - the law requires the
legal, accounting and other professional and technical consent of all co-owners to the making of the alteration
services; on the thing owned in common. This rule shall apply
(c) For purchase of materials, supplies and the like needed even though benefi ts for all would result from such act
by the common areas; of alteration.In case, however, any of the co-owners
(d) For payment of taxes and special assessments which should unreasonably withholds his consent and the same
would be a lien upon the entire project or common areas, and is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the other
for the discharge of any encumbrance levied against the co-owners may go to court for appropriate relief.
entire project or the common areas;  Meaning of “Act of Alteration” - one that affects the
(e) For reconstruction of any portion or portions of any substance of the thing127 and changes its essence and
 nature. him in the division upon the termination of the co-
 Form of Consent - consent of all co-owners may be ownership.
given expressly or tacitly, previous to the act or even
after its commission. Right Over the Ideal Share
 Effect of Unauthorized Alterations - If the alteration  Nature of Co-Owner’s Right Over His Pro Indiviso
is made without the consent of all the co-owners, the act Share - a coowner shall have full ownership of his part
is illegal and invalid, being an act executed against the and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. He has
provision of a mandatory law. The other co-owners can the right to alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even to
compel the erring coowner to undo what has been done, substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when
at the latter’s expense. In addition, the erring co-owner personal rights are involved. As a consequence, a co-
shall likewise be liable for any losses or damages which owner has the right to alienate his pro indiviso share in
the co-ownership may have suffered the co-owned property even without the consent of the
other co-owners and his co-owners cannot enjoin him if
Acts of Administration he intends to alienate his share to a third party. He may
 Rule as to “Acts of Administration” - With respect to also validly lease his undivided interest to a third party
acts of administration and better enjoyment of the thing independently of the other co-owners
owned in common, the resolution of the majority of the  Effect of Alienation or Mortgage of Undivided Share
coowners shall be suffi cient. Under the law on co- - the effect of such alienation or mortgage, with respect
ownership, the terms “majority of the co-owners” do to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which
not refer to numerical majority but to majority of may be allotted to him in the division upon the
interest. termination of the co-ownership. In other words, what
 Meaning of “Acts of Administration” - refers to the the transferee obtains by virtue of such alienation or
improvement or embellishment of the thing owned in mortgage are the same rights as the transferor had as a
common for the purpose of better enjoyment; to the co-owner, in an ideal share equivalent to the
enjoyment of the thing and are of a transitory character. consideration given under their transaction
In determining whether an act is that of administration  Alienation of Defi nite or Concrete Portion - a co-
or alteration, the nature of the thing itself must be owner has no right to sell or alienate a concrete, specific
considered. When the enjoyment of the thing does not or determinate part of the thing owned in common.If the
require its modifi cation, whatever modification or coowner sells a concrete portion, this, nonetheless, does
change that is done will be considered an alteration not render the sale void. Such a sale affects only his
within the terms of Article 491. However, when the own share, subject to the results of the partition but not
thing in its nature requires changes in its exploitation, those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the
such modifi cations and variations should be considered sale.
as falling under the acts of simple administration  Del Campo v. Court of Appeals - a co-owner has no
 No Majority or Act Of Majority Is Seriously right to sell a divided part, by metes and bounds, of the
Prejudicial - According to Manresa, the following acts real estate owned in common. Hence, the buyer cannot
of the majority are considered prejudicial to the co- claim title to that defi nite portion of the land owned in
ownership: (1) when the resolution calls for a Common. What the vendee obtains by virtue of such
substantial change or alteration of the common property sale are the same rights as the vendor had as co-owner,
or of the use to which it has been dedicated by in an ideal share equivalent to the consideration given
agreement or by its nature; (2) when the resolution goes under their transaction. In other words, such sale will
beyond the limit of mere administration or invades only transfer the rights of said co-owner to the buyer,
proprietary rights of the co-owners in violation of thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the
Article 491; (3) when the majority authorizes lease, property.159 As a consequence, the effect of such
loans or other contracts without security, exposing the alienation, with respect to the other co-owners, shall be
thing to serious danger to the prejudice of the other co- limited to the portion which may be allotted to the
owners; and (4) when the majority refuses to dismiss an vendee, as successorin-interest of the selling co-owner,
administrator who is guilty of fraud or negligence in his in the division of the property upon the termination of
management, or he does not have the respectability, the co-ownership. In one case, however, the buyer of a
aptitude, and solvency required of persons holding such concrete or specifi c portion sold by one of the co-
positions. owners was held to be entitled to the specifi c portion
which she purchased because the said buyer was
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of allowed by the other co-owner to occupy said defi nite
his part and of the fruits and benefi s pertaining thereto, portion without disturbance for a period too long to be
and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and ignored. According to the Court in said case, such
even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except undisturbed possession had the effect of a partial
when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the partition of the co-owned property which entitles the
alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, buyerpossessor to the defi nite portion which she
shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to occupies
 Alienation of Entire Co-owned Property - a co-owner void marriage, the property acquired by both of them
cannot alienate the shares of the other co-owners. The through their work or industry shall be governed by the
prohibition is premised on the elementary rule that “no rules on co-ownership. However, Art. 493 does not
one can give what he does not have” — nemo dat quod apply. Article 147 of the Family Code expressly
non habet. no co-owner has the right to alienate the prohibits any of the parties to encumber or dispose by
entire property owned in common. However, even if a acts inter vivos of his or her share in the co-owned
co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will property without the consent of the other prior to the
affect only his own share but not those of the other co- termination of the cohabitation.
owners who did not consent to the sale, following the
well-established principle that the binding force of a Right of Legal Redemption
contract must be recognized as far as it is legally  Legal Redemption in Co-Ownership - A co-owner of
possible to do so — quando res non valet ut ago, valeat a thing may exercise the right of legal redemption in
quantum valere potest(when a thing is of no effect as I case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any of
do it, it shall have effect as far as [or in whatever way] them, are sold to a third person. Should two or more co-
it can). Since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided owners desire to exercise the right of redemption, they
share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner may only do so in proportion to the share they may
without the consent of the other co-owners is not null respectively have in the thing owned in common. Legal
and void. However, only the rights of the co-owner- redemption is in the nature of a privilege created by law
seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co- partly for reasons of public policy and partly for the
owner of the property benefi t and convenience of the redemptioner, to afford
 Applicability of Doctrine of “Buyer in Good Faith” - him a way out of what might be a disagreeable or
when the purchaser knew of, could have known, the inconvenient association into which he has been trust. It
existence of the co-ownership and yet did not seek the is intended to minimize co-ownership by reducing the
consent or authorization of the other co-owners in the number of the participants until the community is done
sale of the entire property, he may not be considered a away with
purchaser in good faith; he only acquires what the  Requisites For the Exercise of Legal Redemption -
selling co-owner could validly transfer following the (1) There must be a co-ownership; (2) one of the co-
rule that “no one can give what he does not have” owners sold his right to a stranger; (3) the sale was
 Sale of Conjugal Property Without the Consent of made before the partition of the co-owned property; (4)
the Other Spouse - in Homeowners Savings & Loan the right of redemption must be exercised by one or
Bank v. Dailo. In this case, the trial and appellate courts more co-owners within a period of thirty days to be
declared as void the mortgage in favor of the bank on counted from the time that he or they were notifi ed in
the subject property, which is conjugal in nature, writing by the vendee or by the co-owner vendor; and
because it was constituted without the knowledge and (5) the vendee must be reimbursed for the price of the
consent of the wife, in accordance with Article 124 of sale
the Family Code.  Presupposes Existence of Co-Ownership - the
 Sale of Community Property Without the Consent of exercise of a right of legal redemption thereunder
Other Spouse - While the absolute community is a presupposes the existence of co-ownership at the time
form of co-ownership between the spouses, neither the conveyance is made by a co-owner and when it is
spouse can dispose of their respective interest in the demanded by the other co-owner or co-owners. Once
community property by way of disposition inter vivos. the property is subdivided and distributed among the co-
In this respect, the rules on co-ownership embodied in owners, the community has terminated and there is no
Article 493 of the Civil Code do not fi nd application in reason to sustain any right of legal redemption
the case of the co-ownership that exists in absolute  Share Must Be Sold To A Third Party - the right to
community. The reason for this is because prior to redeem is granted not only to the original co-owners,
liquidation of the absolute community, the interest of but also to all those who subsequently acquire their
each spouse in the community assets is inchoate, a mere respective shares while the community subsists
expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an  A Co-Owner Has Right of Redemption, Not Pre-
equitable estate, and does not ripen into title until it Emption - By the very nature of the right of “legal
appears that there are assets in the community as a redemption,” a co-owner’s right to redeem is invoked
result of the liquidation and settlement. Hence, any only after the shares of the other co-owners are sold to a
disposition of the spouse’s respective shares or interest third party or stranger to the co-ownership, not before
in the absolute community shall be void since such right  Period of Redemption - shall not be exercised except
to onehalf of the community assets does not vest until withinthirty (30) days from the notice in writing by the
the liquidation of the absolute community. vendor. In other words, if no claim or offer is made
 Co-ownership in Article 147 of the Family Code - within said period, no action will be allowed to enforce
when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry the right of redemption. It is necessary however to
each other live exclusively with each other as husband determine fi rst if and when the written notice of sale
and wife without the benefi t of marriage or under a was duly served by the vendors to their co-owner
 Written Notice Not Necessary If There Is Actual  Destruction of Thing or Lost of Right - the moment
Notice - in Si v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that that the state of fact no longer exists because the object
a co-owner with actual notice of the sale is not entitled of the co-ownership is either destroyed or lost, the co-
to a written notice for such would be superfl uous. The ownership also ceases.
law does not demand what is unnecessary since the  Redemption By One Co-Owner of the Entire
only purpose of such written notice is to insure that all Property - A redemption by a co-owner within the
the co-owners shall be actually notified of the sale and period prescribed by law inures to the benefi t of all the
to remove all doubt as to the perfection of the sale. other co-owners. In such a situation, therefore, the
Hence, in a case where the co-owner was actually redemption made by one co-owner will simply entitle
present and was even an active intermediary in the him to collect reimbursement from the remaining co-
consummation of the sale of the property, he is owners pursuant to the provisions of Article 488
considered to have had actual notice of the sale and a considering that redemption entails a necessary expense.
written notice is no longer necessary
 Article 1620 Distinguished From Article 1088 - Prescription
According to Tolentino, the fine distinction between  General Rule: Prescription Does
Article 1088 and Article 1620 is that when the sale
Not Lie - the Supreme Court has held
consists of an interest in some particular property or
that the possession by a co-owner is
properties of the inheritance, the right of redemption
that arises in favor of the other co-heirs is that like that of a trustee and shall not be
recognized in Article 1620. On the other hand, if the regarded as adverse to the other co-
sale is the hereditary right itself, fully or in part, in the owners but in fact benefi cial to all of
abstract sense, without specifying any particular object, them. Following this principle, it is the
the right recognized in Article 1088 exists rule in this jurisdiction that “no
prescription shall lie in favor of a
Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the coowner or co-heirs as long as he
co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time expressly or impliedly recognizes the
the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as co- ownership.”
his share is concerned.  Exception: When Co-Ownership Is
Repudiated - If the co-owner actually
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided holding the property asserts exclusive
for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall dominion over it against the other co-
be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement. owners, the corollary of the rule is that
he can acquire sole title to it after the
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period
lapse of the prescribed prescriptive
which shall not exceed twenty years.
period. Thus, prescription, as a mode
Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited
of terminating a relation of co-
by law. ownership, must have been preceded
by repudiation of the co-ownership
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co- and absent a clear repudiation of the
heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he co-ownership a co- owner cannot
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. acquire by prescription the share of
the other co-owners
Extinguishment of Co-ownership
 Causes of Extinguishment of Co-ownership - Requisites
(1) By the merger in one person of all the interest of the  The co-owner has performed
coownership; unequivocal acts of repudiation
(2) By prescription of the thing or right in favor of third amounting to an ouster of the
persons or a co-owner; other coowners.
(3) By destruction of the thing or loss of the right which is  Such positive acts of
owned in common; and repudiation have been made
(4) By partition of the property owned in common. known to the other co-owners.
 The evidence thereof is clear
 Merger - a mode of terminating the co-ownership,
and convincing.
takes place when all the interests in a co-ownership are
consolidated in one person (ex. when the shares of the Art. 495. Notwithstanding the
other co-owners are acquired by one co-owner either by provisions of the preceding article,
way of purchase or through the exercise of the right of the co-owners cannot demand a
legal redemption physical division of the thing owned
in common, when to do so would
render it unserviceable for the use
for which it is intended. But the co-
ownership may be
terminated in
accordance with Article 498. may be divided, or its value

Art. 496. Partition may be made by  Right of Co-Owner to Demand

agreement between the parties or Partition - an action for partition
by judicial proceedings. Partition implies that the thing is still owned in
shall be governed by the Rules of common.Hence, as long as the
Court insofar as they are consistent co-
with this Code.

Art. 497. The creditors or assignees

of the co-owners may take part in
the division of the thing owned in
common and object to its being
effected without their concurrence.
But they cannot impugn any
partition already executed, unless
there has been fraud, or in case it
was made notwithstanding a formal
opposition presented to prevent it,
without prejudice to the right of the
debtor or assignor to maintain its
validity.

Art. 498. Whenever the thing is

essentially indivisible and the
coowners cannot agree that it be
allotted to one of them who shall
indemnify the others, it shall be
sold and its proceeds distributed.

Art. 499. The partition of a thing

owned in common shall not
prejudice third persons, who shall
retain the rights of mortgage,
servitude, or any other real rights
belonging to them before the
division was made. Personal rights
pertaining to third persons against
the co-ownership shall also remain
in force, notwithstanding the
partition.

Art. 500. Upon partition, there shall

be a mutual accounting for benefits
received and reimbursements for
expenses made. Likewise, each co-
owner shall pay for damages
caused by reason of his negligence
or fraud.

Art. 501. Every co-owner shall,

after partition, be liable for defects
of title and quality of the portion
assigned to each of the other co-
owners.

Partition
the separation, division and assignment
of a thing held in common among those
to whom it may belong. The thing itself
 ownership is recognized, an action to thirty years
compel partition will not prescribe  Heirs of Flores Restar v. Heirs of
and may be fi led at any time against Dolores R. Cichon - a case where a
the actual possessor by any of the co- owner has acquired the co-owned
other co- owners. If a co-owner or co- property by acquisitive prescription.
heir, however, holds the property in From the foregoing evidence, it can
exclusive adverse possession as be seen that
owner, asserting sole and exclusive
dominion for the required period, he
can acquire sole title to it as against
the co-heirs or co-owners. The
imprescriptibility of the action cannot
thus be invoked when one of the co-
owners has possessed the property as
exclusive owner and for a period suffi
cient to acquire it by prescription.
From the moment one of the co-
owners claims that he is the absolute
and exclusive owner of the properties
and denies the others any share
therein, the question involved is no
longer one of partition, but of
ownership. In such case, the
imprescriptibility of the action for
partition can no longer be invoked or
applied when one of the coowners
has adversely possessed the property
as exclusive owner for a period suffi
cient to vest ownership by
prescription.
 Period of Prescription - When a
co- owner has effectively repudiated
the co- ownership, two possibilities
may arise: (1) such co-owner may
acquire the entire property by virtue
of acquisitive prescription if his
possession meets all the
requirements of the law, and after the
expiration of the prescriptive period;
or (2) the other co-owners who were
deprived of their share may lose their
right to seek a declaration of the
existence of the co- ownership and of
their rights thereunder because the
same may already be barred under
the statute of limitations (or
extinctive prescription).
 Acquisitive Prescription -
Acquisitive prescription of dominion
and other real rights may be ordinary
or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive
prescription requires possession of
things in good faith and with just title
for a period of ten years. Without
good faith and just title, acquisitive
prescription can only be extraordinary
in character which requires
uninterrupted adverse possession for
 the adverse possession of Flores property. The Supreme Court has held
started in 1960, the time when the tax that when a co- owner of the property
declaration was transferred in his in question executed a deed of
name. The period of acquisitive partition and on the strength thereof
prescription started to run from this obtained the cancellation
date. Hence, the adverse possession
of Flores Restar from 1960 vested in
him exclusive ownership of the land
considering the lapse of more than 38
years. Acquisitive prescription of
ownership, laches and prescription of
the action for partition should be
considered in favor of Flores Restar
and his heirs.The following acts of
Flores show possession adverse to his
coheirs: the cancellation of the tax
declaration certifi cate in the name of
Restar and securing another in his
name; the execution of a Joint Affidavit
stating that he is the owner and
possessor thereof to the exclusion of
respondents; payment of real estate
tax and irrigation fees without
respondents having ever contributed
any share therein; and continued
enjoyment of the property and its
produce to the exclusion of
respondents. And Flores’ adverse
possession was continued by his heirs.
 Extinctive Prescription - a co-
ownership is a form of trust and every
co- owner is a trustee for the others. In
Article 1451, when land passes by
succession to any person and he
causes the legal title to be put in the
name of another, a trust is established
by implication of law for the benefi t of
the true owner. Likewise, under Article
1456 of the same Code, if property is
acquired through mistake or fraud, the
person obtaining it is, by force of law,
considered a trustee of an implied
trust for the benefi t of the person
from whom the property comes. Thus,
in a situation where there is a
repudiation of the co-ownership over a
real property, it has been held that the
action for reconveyance by a coowner
of his share prescribes in ten (10)
years, the action being based on an
implied or constructive trust.
 NOTE: When does the ten-year period
commence to run? In a registered
property, the point of reference is
ordinarily the date of registration of
the deed or the date of the issuance of
the certifi cate of title over the
 of the title in the name of their property at stake.
predecessor and the issuance of a  NOTE: If, upon the other hand, the
new one wherein he appears as the court after trial should fi nd the
new owner of the property, thereby in existence of co- ownership among the
effect denying or repudiating the parties litigant, the court may and
ownership of the other co-owners should order the partition of the
over their shares, the statute of property in the same action.
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.
 Action For Partition, Explained -
typically brought by a person claiming
to be co-owner of a specified
property against a defendant or
defendants whom the plaintiff
recognizes to be co-owners — may be
seen to present simultaneously two
principal issues: First, there is the
issue of whether the plaintiff is indeed
a co-owner of the property sought to
be partitioned. Second, assuming that
the plaintiff successfully hurdles the fi
rst issue, there is the secondary issue
of how the property is to be divided
between plaintiff and defendant(s) —
i.e., what portion should go to which
co-owner
 NOTE: Should the trial court fi nd that
the defendants do not dispute the
status of the plaintiff as co-owner, the
court can forthwith proceed to the
actual partitioning of the property
involved. In case the defendants
assert in their Answer exclusive title
in themselves adversely to the
plaintiff, the court should not dismiss
the plaintiffs action for partition but,
on the contrary and in the exercise of
its general jurisdiction, resolve the
question of whether the plaintiff is co-
owner or not.
 NOTE: Should the trial court fi nd that
the plaintiff was unable to sustain his
claimed status as co-owner, or that
the defendants are or have become
the sole and exclusive owners of the
property involved, the court will
necessarily have to dismiss the action
for partition. This result would be
reached, not because the wrong
action was commenced by the
plaintiff, but rather because the
plaintiff having been unable to show
co-ownership rights in himself, no
basis exists for requiring the
defendants to submit to partition the
 Judgment for one or the other party home and there are two or more heirs, the
being on the merits, the losing party whole estate of the decedent (including
(respondents in this case) may then the family home) is, before its
appeal the same. In either case, partition,
however, it is quite unnecessary to
require the plaintiff to fi le another
action, separate and independent
from that for partition originally
instituted. Functionally, an action for
partition may be seen to be at once an
action for declaration of co- ownership
and for segregation and conveyance
of a determinate portion of the
property involved. This is the import of
our jurisprudence on the matter and is
sustained by the public policy which
abhors multiplicity of actions

When Partition Not Available

(1) When there is an agreement among
the owners to keep the thing undivided.
However, such agreement must not
exceed ten years. Where the parties
stipulate a defi nite period of indivision
which exceeds the maximum allowed by
law, said stipulation shall be void only as
to the period beyond such maximum.
However, the period of ten years may be
extended by a new agreement.

(2) When the donor or testator prohibits

partition for a period which shall not
exceed twenty (20) years. Although the
Civil Code is silent as to the effect of the
indivision of a property for more than
twenty years, it would be contrary to
public policy to sanction co- ownership
ownership beyond the period set by the
law. Otherwise, the 20-year limitation
expressly mandated by the Civil Code
would be rendered meaningless.

(3) When the law prohibits partition such

as when the origin or juridical nature of
co- ownership prevents partition:

Examples:
(a) The spouses, who are governed by a
regime of absolute community, cannot
agree to partition the community
property without a judicial order.
(b) The heirs cannot partition the family
home upon the death of the person or
persons who constituted the same unless
the court finds compelling reasons
therefore. Upon the death of the person
or persons who constituted the family
owned in common by such heirs, subject fraud. In the partition among co-heirs,
to the payment of the debts of the they shall reimburse one another for the
deceased. As a rule, any one of the co- income and fruits which each one of them
owners may demand partition at any
time. However, so long as the family
home continues as such pursuant to
the provisions of Article 159 of the Family
Code, the heirs are prohibited from
partitioning the family home unless the
court finds compelling reason therefore.
(4) When partition would render the
thing unserviceable for the
use for which it is intended

 When thing is essentially

indivisible - 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 distributed. This is
resorted to when: (1) the right to
partition the property is invoked by
any of the coowners but because of
the nature of the property it cannot
be subdivided or its subdivision would
prejudice the interests of the co-
owners, and (2) 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.

Legal Effects of Partition

(1) The co-ownership is terminated292
and each co-owner becomes the absolute
and exclusive owner of the share allotted
to him. And he shall be deemed to be in
exclusive possession of that portion
which has been allotted to him even
during the entire period that the co-
ownership lasted.

(2) It shall not prejudice the rights of

third persons, who shall retain the rights
of mortgage, servitude, or any other real
rights belonging to them before the
division was made.

(3) Personal rights pertaining to third

persons against the ownership shall also
remain in force.

(4) Mutual accounting shall be rendered

by the co-owners to each other with
regard to benefi ts and expenses and
each co-owner shall pay for damages
caused by reason of his negligence or
may have received from any property of
the estate, for any useful and necessary
expenses made upon such property, and
for any damage thereto through malice
or neglect.

(5) Every co-owner shall be liable for

defects of title and quality of the portion
assigned to each of the other co-owners