CO OWNERSHIP claim of juridical possession (possession de jure)nor an

averment of ownership by the defendant can outrightly deprive

LILIA SANCHEZ VS CA, ET AL. the trial court from taking due cognizance of the case. Hence,
even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings, like
CONCEPT OF CO OWNERSHIP here, the court may pass upon the issue but only to determine
the question of possession especially if the question of
Sanchez Roman defines co-ownership as "the right of common ownership is inseparably linked with the question of
dominion which two or more persons have in a spiritual part of possession. The adjudication of ownership in that instance is
a thing, not materially or physically divided. 12 Manresa defines it merely provisional, and will not bar or prejudice an action
as the "manifestation of the private right of ownership, which between the same parties involving the title to the property.
instead of being exercised by the owner in an exclusive manner
over the things subject to it, is exercised by two or more SALE BY AN HEIR PRIOR TO PARTITION
owners and the undivided thing or right to which it refers is
one and the same.” Even if an heir’s right in the estate of the decedent has not yet
been fully settled and partitioned and is thus merely inchoate,
The characteristics of co-ownership are: (a) plurality of subjects, Article 493 of the Civil Code gives the heir the right to exercise
who are the co-owners, (b) unity of or material indivision, acts of ownership. Accordingly, when Eliseo sold the disputed
which means that there is a single object which is not property to the respondent in 1990 and 1991, he was only a
materially divided, and which is the element which binds the co-owner along with his siblings, and could sell only that
subjects, and, (c) the recognition of ideal shares, which portion that would be allotted to him upon the termination of
determines the rights and obligations of the co-owners. the co-ownership. The sale did not vest ownership of the
disputed property in the respondent but transferred only the
In co-ownership, the relationship of such co-owner to the other seller’s pro indiviso share to him, consequently making him, as
co-owners is fiduciary in character and attribute. Whether the buyer, a co-owner of the disputed property until it is
established by law or by agreement of the co-owners, the partitioned.
property or thing held pro-indiviso is impressed with a fiducial
nature so that each co-owner becomes a trustee for the benefit
of his co-owners and he may not do any act prejudicial to the CATEDRILLA VS SPOUSES LAURON
interest of his co-owners.
A CO OWNER MAY FILE AND EJECTMENT SUIT WITHOUT
Thus, the legal effect of an agreement to preserve the IMPLEADING THE OTHER CO OWNERS
properties in co-ownership is to create an express trust among
the heirs as co-owners of the properties. Co-ownership is a Petitioner can file the action for ejectment without impleading
form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the others. his co-owners. A co-owner may bring such an action, without
the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs,
Before the partition of a land or thing held in common, no because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of
individual or co-owner can claim title to any definite portion all. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such
thereof. All that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota that he claims possession for himself and not for the co-
or proportionate share in the entire land or thing. ownership, the action will not prosper.

Article 493 of the Civil Code gives the owner of an undivided COMPROMISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES
interest in the property the right to freely sell and dispose of it,
i.e., his undivided interest. He may validly lease his undivided A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of
interest to a third party independently of the other co-owners. res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in
But he has no right to sell or alienate a concrete, specific or compliance with a judicial compromise.1âwphi1
determinate part of the thing owned in common because his
right over the thing is represented by a quota or ideal portion Thus, we have held that a compromise agreement which is not
without any physical adjudication. contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good
customs is a valid contract which is the law between the parties
themselves. It has upon them the effect and authority of res
QUIJANO VS AMANTE judicata even if not judicially approved, and cannot be lightly
set aside or disturbed except for vices of consent and forgery.
EJECTMENT CASE
If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the
An ejectment case can be either for forcible entry or unlawful compromise, the other party may either enforce the
detainer. It is a summary proceeding designed to provide compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his
expeditious means to protect the actual possession or the right original demand.
to possession of the property involved. The sole question for
resolution in the case is the physical or material possession
(possession de facto)of the property in question, and neither a
 ADILLE VS CA, ET AL. MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION
VS ROBERT H. CULLEN
REDEMPTION OF A CO OWNER DOES NOT GIVE HIM
OWNERSHIP TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY HLURB HAS NO JURISDICTION ON DISPUTES BETWEEN
CONDO CORP AND THE UNIT OWNERS
The right of repurchase may be exercised by a co-owner with
aspect to his share alone. While the records show that the Thus, the intra-corporate dispute between petitioner and
petitioner redeemed the property in its entirety, shouldering respondent is still within the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a
the expenses therefor, that did not make him the owner of all special commercial court and not the HLURB.
of it. In other words, it did not put to end the existing state of
co-ownership.
PARTITION
Necessary expenses may be incurred by one co-owner, subject
to his right to collect reimbursement from the remaining co- CABRERA VS YSAAC
owners. There is no doubt that redemption of property entails
a necessary expense. SALE OF A DEFINITE PORTION PRIOR TO PARTITION

The result is that the property remains to be in a condition of If the alienation precedes the partition, the co-owner cannot
co-ownership. While a vendee a retro, under Article 1613 of the sell a definite portion of the land without consent from his or
Code, "may not be compelled to consent to a partial her co-owners. He or she could only sell the undivided interest
redemption," the redemption by one co-heir or co-owner of of the co-owned property.
the property in its totality does not vest in him ownership over
it. Failure on the part of all the co-owners to redeem it entitles Hence, prior to partition, a sale of a definite portion of
the vendee a retro to retain the property and consolidate title common property requires the consent of all co-owners
thereto in his name. But the provision does not give to the because it operates to partition the land with respect to the co-
redeeming co-owner the right to the entire property. It does owner selling his or her share. The co-owner or seller is already
not provide for a mode of terminating a co-ownership. marking which portion should redound to his or her
autonomous ownership upon future partition.

CONDOMINIUM ACT A co-owner could enter into a contract to sell a definite portion
of the property. However, such contract is still subject to the
SUNSET VIEW CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION suspensive condition of the partition of the property, and that
VS HON. CAMPOS the other co-owners agree that the part subject of the contract
to sell vests in favor of the co-owner’s buyer. Hence, the co-
OWNERSHIP OF A UNIT IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON TO owners’ consent is an important factor for the sale to ripen.
BEING A SHAREHOLDER

The share of stock appurtenant to the unit win be transferred FIGURACION VS FIGURACION
accordingly to the purchaser of the unit only upon full payment
of the purchase price at which time he will also become the A CO-OWNER CANNOT REPUDIATE THE CO-OWNERSHIP BY
owner of the unit. Consequently, even under the contract, it is VIRTUE OF A TORRENS TITLE
only the owner of a unit who is a shareholder of the
Condominium Corporation. Inasmuch as owners is conveyed Possession of a co-owner is like that of a trustee and shall not
only upon full payment of the purchase price, it necessarily be regarded as adverse to the other co-owner but in fact
follows that a purchaser of a unit who has not paid the full beneficial to all of them.
purchase price thereof is not the owner of the unit and
consequently is not a shareholder of the Condominium A trustee who obtains a Torrens title over a property held in
Corporation. trust for him by another cannot repudiate the trust by relying
on the registration. The Torrens system does not create or vest
Ownership of a unit is a condition sine qua non to being a title. It only confirms and records title already existing and
shareholder in the condominium corporation. This is so vested. It does not protect a usurper from the true owner. The
because nobody can be a shareholder unless he is the owner of Torrens system was not intended to foment betrayal in the
a unit and when he ceases to be the owner, he also ceases performance of a trust. It does not permit one to enrich himself
automatically to be a shareholder. at the expense of another. Where one does not have a rightful
claim to the property, the Torrens system of registration can
confirm or record nothing.
 of the plaintiffs over his alleged share in the entire lot, that the
OLIVEROS VS LOPEZ statute of limitations started to run for the purposes of the
action instituted by the latter seeking a declaration of the
CO-OWNERSHIP IS NOT INDEFINITE existence of the co-ownership and of their rights thereunder.

In a long line of decisions, this Court has held that before the
partition of a land or thing held in common, no individual co- ANNIE TAN VS CA
owner can claim title to any definite portion thereof. All that
the co-owner has is an Ideal or abstract quota or proportionate CO-OWNERSHIP IS EXTINGUISHED UPON THE LAPSE OF THE
share in the entire land or thing. PERIOD OF REDEMPTION

However, the duration of the juridical condition of co- there can be no question that a co-ownership existed among
ownership is not limitless. Under Article 494 and 1083 of the the heirs during the period given by law to redeem the
Civil Code, co-ownership of an estate should not exceed the foreclosed property. Redemption by one during this period
period of twenty (20) years. And, under the former article, any would have inured to the benefit of all
agreement to keep a thing or property undivided should be for
a ten-year period only. Where the parties stipulate a definite The records show, however, that when the petitioner purchased
period of in division which exceeds the maximum allowed by the disputed property on August 30, 1974, any co-ownership
law, said stipulation shall be void only as to the period beyond among the brothers and sisters no longer existed. The period
such maximum. to redeem had expired more than one year earlier, on July 6,
1973. The respondent China Bank consolidated its ownership
Although the Civil Code is silent as to the effect of the in and a new title was issued in the bank's name. When the heirs
division of a property for more than twenty years, it would be allowed the oneyear redemption period to expire without
contrary to public policy to sanction co-ownership beyond the redeeming their parents' former property and permitted the
period set by the law. Otherwise, the 20-year limitation consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new title, the
expressly mandated by the Civil Code would be rendered co-ownership was extinguished.
meaningless.

PAZ VS GALVEZ

REPUDIATION BY A TRUSTEE, RECKONING

Filing by a trustee of an action in court against the trustor to

quiet title to property, or for recovery of ownership thereof,
held in possession by the former, may constitute an act of
repudiation of the trust reposed on him by the latter.

The issuance of the certificate of title would constitute an open

and clear repudiation of any trust, and the lapse of more than
20 years, open and adverse possession as owner would
certainly suffice to vest title by prescription.

An action for the reconveyance of land based on implied or

constructive trust prescribes within 10 years. And it is from the
date of the issuance of such title that the effective assertion of
adverse title for purposes of the statute of limitation is
counted.

There is clear repudiation of a trust when one who is an

apparent administrator of property causes the cancellation of
the title thereto in the name of the apparent beneficiaries and
gets a new certificate of title in his own name.

It is only when the defendants, alleged co-owners of the

property in question, executed a deed of partition and on the
strength thereof obtained the cancellation of the title in the
name of their predecessor and the issuance of a new one
wherein they appear as the new owners of a definite area each,
thereby in effect denying or repudiating the ownership of one