CO-OWNERSHIP : Arts.

484 - 490

1. Define Co-ownership in 1 or 2 sentences.

Co-ownership is the ownership of two or more persons over a thing or right which had not
been physically divided between, or by and among them.

2. Is there is co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are
already concretely determined and identifiable, even if not yet technically
described?

In the case of De Guia vs Court of Appeals, it was ruled that there is no co-ownership when
the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and
separately identifiable even if not yet technically described.

3. Can a co-owner alienate his pro indiviso share in the co-owned property?

Yes, Article 493 provides that:

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 mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion
which may be alloted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.

o NUFABLE V. NUFABLE, 309 SCRA 692 (1999)

Article 493 of the Civil Code spells out the rights of co-owners over a co-owned property.
Pursuant to said Article, a co-owner shall have full ownership of his part and of the fruits
and benefits pertaining thereto. He has the right to alienate, assign or mortgage it, and
even substitute another person in its enjoyment. As a mere part owner, he cannot
alienate the shares of the other co-owners. The prohibition is premised on the
elementary rule that no one can give what he does not have.

o SANCHEZ V. CA, 404 SCRA 540 (2003)

Article 493 of the Civil Code gives the owner of an undivided interest in the property the
right to freely sell and dispose of it, i.e., his undivided interest. He may validly lease his
undivided interest to a third party independently of the other co-owners.[18] But he has
no right to sell or alienate a concrete, specific or determinate part of the thing owned in
common because his right over the thing is represented by a quota or ideal portion
without any physical adjudication.[19]

Although assigned an aliquot but abstract part of the property, the metes and bounds of
petitioners lot has not been designated. As she was not a party to the Deed of Absolute
Sale voluntarily entered into by the other co-owners, her right to 1/6 of the property must
be respected. Partition needs to be effected to protect her right to her definite share and
determine the boundaries of her property. Such partition must be done without prejudice
to the rights of private respondent Virginia Teria as buyer of the 5/6 portion of the lot
under dispute.

4. Will co-owner X lose his part of ownership of a co-owned property if his co-owner
Y mortgaged the co-owned property, including the share of X without X´s
knowledge and consent?

1
 No, a co-owner does not lose his part ownership of a co-owned property where his share is
mortgaged by another co-owner without the former’s knowledge and consent. (Mercado vs.
Court of Appeals)

o NUFABLE V. NUFABLE, 309 SCRA 692 (1999),

Respondents stipulated that they were not aware of the mortgage by petitioners of
the subject property. This being the case, a co-owner does not lose his part ownership
of a co-owned property when his share is mortgaged by another co-owner without
the formers knowledge and consent as in the case at bar. It has likewise been ruled
that the mortgage of the inherited property is not binding against co-heirs who never
benefitted.

5. Can a co-owner validly lease his undivided interest to a third party?

o SANCHEZ V. CA, 404 SCRA 540 (2003)

Yes, Article 493 of the Civil Code gives the owner of an undivided interest in the
property the right to freely sell and dispose of it, i.e., his undivided interest. He may
validly lease his undivided interest to a third party independently of the other
co-owners.

But he has no right to sell or alienate a concrete, specific or determinate part of the
thing owned in common because his right over the thing is represented by a quota or
ideal portion without any physical adjudication.

6. What governs Co-ownership under Art. 484? What is the order of application?

Under Art. 484, the rules governing co-ownership are the following in order:

1. By contracts;
2. By special provisions; and
3. By Title III of the Code (Co-Ownership) which covers Articles 484 to 501).

7. How may co-ownership be created?

Co-ownership is created when the following requisites are present:

1. Plurality of subjects, which means there must be at least two persons;

2. Unity of object, which means the thing is not yet divided materially and the co-
owners are tied up to one another because of this unity; and
3. Recognition of the ideal shares of the co-owners which determines their respective
rights and obligations.

8. State 7 Characteristics of Co-ownership in short sentence/s.

(a) There must be more than one subject or owner.
(b) There is one physical whole divided into IDEAL (undivided) shares.
(c) Each IDEAL share is defi nite in amount, but is not physically segregated from the
rest.
(d) Regarding the physical whole, each co-owner must respect each other in the
common use, enjoyment, or preservation of the physical whole. (See Scaevola).
[Thus, a co-owner cannot sell a defi nite (with boundaries) part of the property]. (See Lopez v. Illustre, 5
Phil. 568-569). The interest of the others must indeed not be disregarded. (Art. 486).
(e) Regarding the IDEAL share, each co-owner holds almost absolute control
over the same. [Thus, he is full owner of his part, and of the fruits and benefi ts thereof; and he may

2
 alienate, assign, or mortgage it, but he cannot substitute another person in its enjoyment, when personal
rights are involved. (Art. 493).].
(f) It is not a juridical person, i.e., it has no juridical personality. (Smith v. Lopez,
5 Phil. 78).
(g) A co-owner is in a sense a trustee for the other co-owners. (See Castrillo v.
Court of Appeals, L-18046, Mar. 31, 1964). Thus, he may not ordinarily acquire exclusive
ownership of the property held in common thru prescription. (Ibid.).

9. Is co-ownership a juridical person?

A co-ownership is not a juridical person. Hence, it has no personality to sue or be sued.

However, co-owners can sue or be sued in their individual capacities.

10. How should the co-owners share in the benefits and charges relative to the
property owned in common?

Under Article 485, the law presumes that the portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-
ownership are equal unless the contrary is proved.

11. Can co-owners validly stipulate in a contract a rule contrary to the rule above
(#10)?
Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary is void as provided in Article 485.

12. What is the general rule as to the use of the property owned in common? What are
the limitations?

Article 486 provides that each co-owner is granted the right to use the property owned in
common for the purpose for which it is intended subject to the following limitations:

1. The co-ownership shall not be injured; and

2. The exercise shall not prevent the other co-owners from using the property according
to their own rights.

13. If the co-owners litigate with respect to the property owned in common, are they
required by law to always litigate or sue in the name of the entire co-owners, or can
they litigate in their individual capacity as co-owners?

In litigation, a co-owner is a representative suit as the co-owners are deemed included as

plaintiffs.

The presumption is that the case instituted by one was really in behalf of ALL. (TS, June 5,
1918). After all, in one sense, a co-owner owns and possesses the whole; moreover, ejectment
cases are urgent and summary in character.

14. Can a co-owner compel other co-owners to share in the preservation expenses and
taxes?

Yes, Article 486 provides that each co-owner shall have a right to compel other co-owners to
contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the
taxes.

15. Are there ways by which a co-owner may exempt himself from paying his share in
the preservation expenses and taxes?

3
 Under Article 486, a co-owner may exempt himself from his obligation to pay by renouncing
so much of his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and
taxes. But no waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the co-ownership.

16. Is it required that before a co-owner incur repairs for preservation expenses and
taxes, he must first notify or obtain the consent of the other co-owners?

No, at the will of even one co-owner, necessary expenses for preservation may be made by
advancing expenses therefor and he may later collect from his co-owners the latter’s
respective shares in the expenses. But to avoid inconvenience arising from lack of warning
and as a matter of courtesy, the co-owner who is determined to make the necessary repairs
should notify his co-owners about the necessity of such repairs.

The law, however, does not make it a condition precedent that the co-owners should give
their consent first before the well-meaning and concerned co-owner can proceed with the
repair of work. He should not be prejudiced by the indifference or negligence of the other co-
owners.

17. What are the requirements and/or limitations if a co-owner renounces his
undivided share equivalent to answer for his duty to share in the expenses and
taxes?

Under Article 488, it limits the renouncement that it must not be prejudicial to the co-
ownership.

18. What is the legal consequence if the co-owner/s who paid, or the creditor, refuses
to accept a co-owner’s offer to renounce his undivided rights as his share in the
payment for the necessary or preservation expenses?

19. Is mere refusal to pay the proportional share by a co-owner in the preservation or
necessary expenses, automatically considered as a renunciation of his undivided
share to answer for his duty to reimburse these expenses?

Renunciation cannot be implied by mere refusal to pay the proportionate share. (3 Manresa
452). If there is refusal to pay, but no renunciation, the creditors can still collect from the
delinquent co-owner. Here, the other co-owners do not have to intervene, for they are not
the ones prejudiced.

The renunciation must be performed with unequivocal acts and such positive acts have been
made known to other co-owners.

While a co-owner is allowed partial renunciation, he cannot make a valid renunciation if it is

prejudicial to the co-ownership.

20. State the rule as to the number of co-owners who must consent:
a) Necessary Repairs, or Ejectment action - One (Article 489)
b) Alterations or Acts of Ownership – ALL. (Art. 491).
c) Useful improvements, administration, luxurious embellishments – FINANCIAL
MAJORITY (not numerical). (Art. 492 and Art. 489)

4
21. Can a co-owner proceed with the necessary or preservation expenses or repairs of
the property co-owned, even if majority of the co-owners opposed it?

Yes, but he is taking the risk of repairing without being entitled to reimbursement for the
expenses incurred, if it turned out later that the repairs are found not for the preservation of the
property.

In the event that no repairs are done because of the opposition, and the property is ruined or
diminished in value, the oppositors could be liable for the damages suffered by the rest. (3 Sanchez
Roman; 3 Manresa 448-449)

a.) What are the options of the co-owner who wants to proceed with the necessary
repairs to avoid damage to the property co-owned?

If he has money, he may advance the funds, and recover later from the others. (3 Sanchez
Roman 177). If he has NO money in the meantime, he can contract with the repairmen, and
all the co-owners will be liable proportionately to the creditors. Here, they may renounce
their shares in the co-ownership (equivalent to their share of the expenses) IN FAVOR of the
CREDITORS (provided the latter agree — DATIO IN SOLUTUM); or make the renouncing in
favor of the conscientious co-owner (provided that said co-owner agrees to assume that
obligation — DATIO EN PAGO; and provided that the creditors agree — NOVATION or
change of debtor, Arts. 1244, 1245). Otherwise, no renouncing can be done and they would
still be indebted.

b.) What are the options of the co-owner/s who are liable and are now deemed
debtors to:
i. the co-owner who advanced the payment, or;
ii. to the other creditors such as repairmen, material owners

● Write a summary, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the following cases:
22. Mariano Adriano et al v. CA et al, GR 124118, Mar. 27, 2000
23. Tumlos v. Spouses Mario Fernandez, GR 137650, Apr. 12, 2000
24. De Guia v. CA, 413 SCRA 114, 2003
25. Mendoza v. Coronel, 482 SCRA 353

26.In case of a building where there are different stories belonging to different
persons, is this still considered as co-ownership? What are the rules with respect
to contribution or sharing of maintenance and necessary expenses, as to –

a.) Main walls, party walls, roof, main entrance door, sanitary works, common
and other things used in common
b.) Each Floor
c.) Stairs from entrance to different stories