Aguilar v CA
G.R. No. 76351 October 29, 1993
“action to compel sale”
https://www.lawyer.ie/property/tenancies/
ISSUES
1. Can a co-owner compel the
other co-owner to sell the co-
owned property?
2. W/N the trial court’s decision,
ordering Senen Aguilar to
vacate the premises to
proceed with the sale and to
pay rental for the use of the
property, was correct.
https://www.fiverr.com/grilloseo/compel-seo-contents-for-travelers-globally
RULES
New Civil Code Reyes v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 56550
(1990)
Article 494: No co-owner shall be obliged to
remain in the co-ownership, and that each co- Court upheld the order of the trial court
owner may demand at any time partition of the directing the holding of a public sale of the
thing owned in common insofar as his share is properties owned in common pursuant to Art.
concerned. 498 of the Civil Code.
New Civil Code New Civil Code
Art. 498: whenever the thing is essentially, Art. 486: Each co-owner may use the thing owned in
indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that common, provided he does so in accordance with the
purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as
it be, allotted to one of them who shall
not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or
indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its prevent the other co-owners from using it according
proceeds accordingly distributed. to their rights.
As ruled in Pardell v. Bartolome, 23 Phil. 450 (1912)
FACTS
They further agreed 1974: Their father
that Senen would take died. 1975: Virgilio
Virgilio and Senen are
care of their father, then demanded Senen
brothers.
since Virgilio would be to vacate the property
staying in Cebu. so they could sell it.
1969: They bought a The property was
1979: Virgilio filed an
house and lot in eventually purchased
action to compel the
Paranaque for their by both. The title was
sale.
father. under Senen’s name.
2nd agreement: Equal
1st agreement: 2/3 shares; Senen to assume RTC ruled in favor of
belongs to Virgilio, 1/3 mortgage; Senen to Virgilio. CA remanded
belongs to Senen possess and enjoy the the case to RTC.
house with his father
ARGUMENTS
Virgilio Senen
• Grant the petition to compel sale • No objection to the sale as long as the best-
• Proceeds should be divided as follows: selling price will be obtained
• 2/3 to Virgilio • Proceeds should be divided equally (2nd
• 1/3 to Senen agreement)
• Entitled to monthly rentals for the use of the • Being a co-owner, he was entitled to the use
house by Senen after their father died. and enjoyment of the property free of charge
RTC
• Held: Virgilio and Senen are co-owners of the house and lot, in equal
shares on the basis of their written agreement (2nd agreement).
• Upheld the petition to compel the sale
• Ordered Senen to pay P1,200.00 as rentals from January 1975 up to the
date of decision plus interest from the time the action was filed.
CONCLUSION
❖ Trial Court’s ruling granting the petition to compel sale is correct. The ruling on
monthly rentals, however, is partly incorrect.
• Since Virgilio already chose to exercise his right to end the co-ownership pursuant
to Art. 494, and Senen has prevented the sale of the property by his continued
occupancy of the premises, Senen and his family should vacate the property so that
the sale may be effected immediately pursuant to Art. 498.
• Senen 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 belonging to Virgilio.
• At this point, the co-ownership was deemed terminated and the right to enjoy
the possession (Art. 486) jointly also ceased.
