[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
31 views1 page

Aguilar Vs CA

The brothers Virgilio and Senen purchased a house together to care for their elderly father. They initially agreed Virgilio owned two-thirds and Senen one-third, but later agreed to equal shares. After their father passed, Virgilio demanded the house be sold and proceeds divided. When Senen refused, Virgilio filed suit. The court ruled that once the co-ownership was terminated by the lawsuit, Senen's continued living in the house prejudiced Virgilio's rights, as the property should have been sold. Senen was ordered to pay rent until vacating.

Uploaded by

cyhaaangelaaa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views1 page

Aguilar Vs CA

The brothers Virgilio and Senen purchased a house together to care for their elderly father. They initially agreed Virgilio owned two-thirds and Senen one-third, but later agreed to equal shares. After their father passed, Virgilio demanded the house be sold and proceeds divided. When Senen refused, Virgilio filed suit. The court ruled that once the co-ownership was terminated by the lawsuit, Senen's continued living in the house prejudiced Virgilio's rights, as the property should have been sold. Senen was ordered to pay rent until vacating.

Uploaded by

cyhaaangelaaa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

63. Aguilar vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 76351
October 29, 1993

FACTS:

Petitioner Virgilio and respondent Senen are brothers.


The two brothers purchased a house and lot where their father could spend and enjoy his
remaining years in a peaceful neighborhood.
Initially, the brothers agreed that Virgilio's share in the co-ownership was two-thirds while that of
Senen was one-third.
By virtue of a written memorandum, Virgilio and Senen agreed that henceforth their interests in the
house and lot should be equal
It was further agreed that Senen would take care of their father and his needs since Virgilio and his
family were staying in Cebu.
After their father died, petitioner demanded from private respondent that the latter vacate the house
and that the property be sold and proceeds thereof divided among them.
Because of the refusal of respondent to give in to petitioner's demands, the latter filed an action to
compel the sale of the house and lot so that the they could divide the proceeds between them.
Virgilio prayed for monthly rentals for the use of the house by respondent after their father died.
Senen contends that being a co-owner, he was entitled to the use and enjoyment of the property
thus he does not need to pay the rentals.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Senens continued stay prejudice the right of Virgilio

RULING:

YES.

When Virgilio filed an action to compel the sale of the property and the trial court granted the petition and
ordered the ejectment of Senen, the co-ownership was deemed terminated and the right to enjoy the
possession jointly also ceased. Thereafter, the continued stay of respondent and his family in the house
prejudiced the interest of petitioner as the property should have been sold and the proceeds divided equally
between them. To this extent and from then on, Senen should be held liable for monthly rentals until
he and his family vacate.

You might also like