CO-OWNERSHIP : Arts.

484 - 490

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

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?

3. Can a co-owner alienate his pro indiviso share in the co-owned property?
o NUFABLE V. NUFABLE, 309 SCRA 692 (1999),
HELD: Thus, when Angel Nufable and his spouse mortgaged the subject property to DBP on March 15, 1966,
they had no right to mortgage the entire property. Angel’s right over the subject property was limited only to ¼
pro indiviso share. As co-owner of the subject property, Angel’s right to sell, assign or mortgage is limited to
that portion that may be allotted to him upon termination of the co-ownership. Well-entrenched is the rule that
a co-owner can only alienate his pro indiviso share in the co-owned property.

The Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Angel Custodio Nufable "had no right to mortgage the subject
property in its entirety. His right to encumber said property was limited only to ¼ pro indiviso share of the
property in question." 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."

Moreover, 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 former’s knowledge and consent 16 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.

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

Co-ownership, whether established by law or by agreement of the co-owners, the 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 interest of his co-owners. Thus, the legal effect of an
agreement to preserve the properties in co-ownership is to create an express trust among the heirs as co-
owners of the properties. Co-ownership is a form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the others.

Before the partition of a land or thing held in common, no individual or co-owner can claim title to any definite
portion thereof. All that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire land
or thing.

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.

Although assigned an aliquot but abstract part of the property, the metes and bounds of petitioner’s lot has not
been designated. As she was not a party to the Deed of Absolute Salevoluntarily 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.

1
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?
o NUFABLE V. NUFABLE, 309 SCRA 692 (1999),

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

11. Can co-owners validly stipulate in a contract a rule contrary to the rule above (#10)?
12. What is the general rule as to the use of the property owned in common? What are the
limitations?
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?

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

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

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?

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?

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?

20. State the rule as to the number of co-owners who must consent:
a) Necessary Repairs, or Ejectment action -
b) Alterations or Acts of Ownership –
c) Useful improvements, administration, luxurious embellishments –

2
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?

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?
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