Pardell v. Bartolome

Pardell v. Bartolome, G.R. No.
4656, November 18, 1912
Doctrine: Each co-owner or tenant in common of undivided realty has the same rights therein as the others;
he may use and enjoy the same without other limitation except that he must not prejudice the rights of his co-
owners, but until a division is effected, the respective parts belonging to each cannot be determined; each co-
owner exercises joint dominion and is entitled to joint use.
For the use and enjoyment of a particular portion of the lower part of a house, not used as living quarters, a
co-owner must, in strict justice, pay rent, in like manner as other people pay for similar space in the house; he
has no right to the free use and enjoyment of such space which, if rented to a third party, would produce
income.
Facts: 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 in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, in 1875 and 1882, respectively.
Calixta, prior to her death, executed, on August 17, 1876, a nuncupative will where she made her four children,
Manuel, Francisca, Vicenta, and Matilde, her sole and universal heirs of all her property Aside from some
personal property and jewelry already divided among the heirs, Calixta possessed, at the time of the execution
of will, and left at her death the real properties listed below.
Matilde Ortiz and Gaspar de Barolome, Spouses Bartolome, , took upon themselves the administration and
enjoyment of the real properties. Vicenta claims that the spouses has been delaying the partition and delivery
of the properties. Vicenta Ortiz and Ricardo Pardell, Spouses Pardell, prayed for the restoration and delivery
of the one-half of the total value in case of the undivided property amounting to Php3,948 and for her to be
vested with full and absolute right of ownership. And, to indemnify her in the sum of Php8,000 for losses and
damages.
The defendants claim the following collections and expenses. And, it also provided statement of account for
the administration of the property.
The properties were appraised, please see below the appraisal value. Properties with the defendants are the
real properties mentioned above while the properties with the plaintiffs are the jewelries.
The Court held that the revenues and expenses that the defendants claim were compensated by the residence
they enjoyed, but no losses or damages were either caused or suffered. It absolved the defendants from the
complaint and the plaintiffs from the counterclaim, with no special finding as to costs.
Defendants moved for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence presented did not warrant the judgment
rendered and was contrary to law. Motion was denied. Counsel filed a proper bill of exceptions and the same
was approved and forwarded to the clerk of the court.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Spouses Bartolome , as coowner of the house on Calle Escolta, was entitled to reside
in the upper room of the said property without paying to her coowner; and
2. Whether or not Spouses Bartolome should pay rental for the room in the lower room of Calle Escolta
used by Gaspar as an office for the justice of the peace.
Ruling:
1. Yes, they are entitled to reside in the co-owned property provided that it shall not injure the
interests of his co-owners,
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."
Matilde Ortiz and her husband occupied the upper story, designed for use as a dwelling, in the house
of joint ownership ; but the record shows no proof that, by so doing, the said Matilde occasioned any
detriment to the interests of the community property, nor that she prevented her sister Vicenta from
utilizing the said upper story according to her 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 cannot be determined
and every one of the coowners exercises, together with his other coparticipants, joint ownership over
the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the same.
The defendant Matilde, therefore, in occupying with her husband the upper floor of the said house,
did not injure the interests of her coowner, her sister Vicenta, nor did she prevent the latter from
living therein, but merely exercised a legitimate right pertaining to her as a coowner of the property.
2. Yes, the defendants should pay half of the rental fee to the plaintiffs for the use of the room for
four years. Such use of property was to the detriment of the plaintiffs.
Gaspar de Bartolome, occupied for four years a room or a part of the lower floor of the same house on
Calle Escolta, using it as an office for the justice of the peace, a position which he held in the capital of
that province, strict justice requires that he pay his sister-in-law, the plaintiff, one-half of the monthly
rent which the said quarters could have produced, had they been leased to another person.
Even as the husband of the defendant coowner of the property, he had no right to occupy and use
gratuitously the said part of the lower floor of the house in question, where he lived with his wife, to
the detriment of the plaintiff Vicenta who did not receive one-half of the rent which those quarters
could and should have produced, had they been occupied by a stranger, in the same manner that rent
was obtained from the rooms on the lower floor that were used as stores. Therefore, the defendant
Bartolome must pay to the plaintiff Vicenta P384, that is, one-half of P768, the total amount of the
rents which should have been obtained during four years from the quarters occupied as an office by
the justice of the peace of Vigan.
In consideration of the foregoing, whereby the errors assigned to the lower court have been duly refuted, it is
our opinion that, with a partial reversal of the judgment appealed from, in so far as it absolves the plaintiffs
from the counterclaim presented by the defendants, we should and hereby do sentence the plaintiffs to the
payment of the sum of P915.08.
The court further find:
(1) That the defendants are not obliged to pay one-half of the rents which could have been obtained
from the upper story of the said house;
(2) that the plaintiffs cannot be compelled to pay the legal interest from December 7, 1904, on the
sum expanded in the reconstruction of the aforementioned house, but only the interest fixed by law,
at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, from the date of the judgment to be rendered in accordance with
this decision;
(3) that the husband of the defendant Matilde Ortiz is not entitled to any remuneration for the
administration of the pro indiviso property belonging to both parties;
(4) that, neither is he entitled to collect from the plaintiffs the sum of P910.50, the difference between
the assessed valuation and the price set by the expert appraisal solicited by the plaintiffs in their
amendment to the complaint; and,
(5) that no participation shall be made of jewelry aforementioned now in the possession of the
plaintiff Vicenta Ortiz.
The said judgment, as relates to the points appealed, is affirmed, in so far as its findings agree with those of
this decision, and is reversed, in so far as they do not. No special finding is made regarding the costs of both
instances. So ordered.

Pardell v. Bartolome

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pardell v. Bartolome

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pardell v. Bartolome

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pardell v. Bartolome, G.R. No.

4656, November 18, 1912

Article 394 of the Civil Code prescribes:

The court further find:

You might also like