Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Co-Ownership - Pardell Vs Bartolome

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    This case involves a dispute between siblings Vicenta and Matilde over property they inherited from their deceased parents. Vicenta sued Matilde and her husband Gaspar for exclusively using and collecting rents from the co-owned property without partitioning or accounting to Vicenta for her share. The court ruled that while Matilde was not required to pay rent for occupying the upper story as a co-owner, Gaspar was required to pay half the monthly rent for exclusively using a room in the lower floor for four years without right as he was merely the husband of a co-owner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Co-Ownership - Pardell Vs Bartolome

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    25 views6 pages
    This case involves a dispute between siblings Vicenta and Matilde over property they inherited from their deceased parents. Vicenta sued Matilde and her husband Gaspar for exclusively using and collecting rents from the co-owned property without partitioning or accounting to Vicenta for her share. The court ruled that while Matilde was not required to pay rent for occupying the upper story as a co-owner, Gaspar was required to pay half the monthly rent for exclusively using a room in the lower floor for four years without right as he was merely the husband of a co-owner.

    Original Title

    Co-ownership_pardell vs Bartolome

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between siblings Vicenta and Matilde over property they inherited from their deceased parents. Vicenta sued Matilde and her husband Gaspar for exclusively using and collecting rents from the co-owned property without partitioning or accounting to Vicenta for her share. The court ruled that while Matilde was not required to pay rent for occupying the upper story as a co-owner, Gaspar was required to pay half the monthly rent for exclusively using a room in the lower floor for four years without right as he was merely the husband of a co-owner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    25 views6 pages

    Co-Ownership - Pardell Vs Bartolome

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    This case involves a dispute between siblings Vicenta and Matilde over property they inherited from their deceased parents. Vicenta sued Matilde and her husband Gaspar for exclusively using and collecting rents from the co-owned property without partitioning or accounting to Vicenta for her share. The court ruled that while Matilde was not required to pay rent for occupying the upper story as a co-owner, Gaspar was required to pay half the monthly rent for exclusively using a room in the lower floor for four years without right as he was merely the husband of a co-owner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    RICARDO PARDELL AND

    VICENTA ORTIZ-PARDELL
    VS.
    GASPAR BARTOLOME AND
    MATILDE ORTIZ-
    BARTOLOME
    G.R. No. L-4656 November 18, 1912
    FACTS

    Plaintiff Vicenta and Defendant Matilde are


    siblings. Prior to the death of their parents, their
    mother executed a verbal will, whereby she made her
    four children her sole and universal heirs of all her
    property. Vicenta and Matilde are the only living
    heirs. In 1888, Sps. Matilde and Gaspar, without
    judicial authorization, nor friendly or extrajudicial
    agreement, administered and enjoyed the properties
    and collected the rents, fruits, and products to the
    serious detriment of Vicenta’s interest. Despite
    repeated demands to divide the properties and the
    fruits, Sps. Matilde and Gaspar delayed the partition
    and delivery by means of unkempt promises and
    other excuses. Vicenta filed a petition for partition
    with damages in the RTC.
    20XX Pitch Deck 2
    RTC absolved Matilde from payment of
    damages saying the revenues and expenses were
    compensated by the residence enjoyed by the
    defendant party, that no losses or damages were
    either caused or suffered, nor likewise any other
    expense besides those aforementioned, Counsel
    for Matilde took an exception to the judgment and
    moved for a new trial on the grounds that the
    evidence presented did not warrant the judgment
    rendered and that the latter was contrary to law.
    That motion was denied by the lower court. Thus,
    this petition.
    ISSUE

    Whether a co-owner is required to pay for rent in


    exclusively using the co-owned property.

    20XX Pitch Deck 4


    RULING

    No. Article 394 of the Civil Code (Article 486 of the New 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
    co-owners from utilizing them according to their rights.“
    While Sps. Matilde and Gaspar occupied the upper story, there was no
    proof that, by so doing, they 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.
    The lower floor was rented, and an accounting of the rents was duly made
    to the Vicenta. 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 co-owners,
    because, until a division be made, the respective part of each holder
    cannot be determined and every one of the co-owners exercises together
    with his other co-participants, joint ownership over the pro indiviso
    property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the same.

    20XX Pitch Deck 5


    Vicenta was in Spain for several years, so it is not at all strange that
    delays and difficulties should come to collect the rents and proceeds
    from the property and to obtain a partition, especially because,
    owing to the insurrection, the country was in a turmoil. Thus, they
    are not obliged to pay to Vicenta one-half of the rents in the upper
    story as they did not injure the interests of her sister Vicenta, nor did
    she prevent the latter from living therein, but merely exercised a
    legitimate right pertaining to her as a co owner of the property.
    However, Matilde's husband, Gaspar, occupied for four years a
    room of the lower floor using it as an office. He is required to pay
    his sister-in-law, 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 co-owner of the property, he had no
    right to occupy and use gratuitously the said part of the lower floor
    of the house where he lived with his wife.

    20XX Pitch Deck 6

    You might also like