G.R. No.
L-4656, November 18, 1912
RICARDO PARDELL Y CRUZ and
VICENTA ORTIZ Y FELIN DE PARDELL, plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
GASPAR DE BARTOLOME Y ESCRIBANO and
MATILDE ORTIZ Y FELIN DE BARTOLOME, defendants-appellants.
TORRES, J.:
FACTS:
During her lifetime, Calixta Felin executed a nuncupative will and made her 4 children her sole and
universal heir.
Plaintiff Vicenta Pardel and defendant Matilde Bartolome were the remaining heirs.
Defendant spouses, without judicial authorization, took upon themselves the administration and
enjoyment of the properties. Collected rents and fruits thereof, to the serious detriment of the
plaintiffs’ interest.
Despite the extrajudicial demands to divide and to deliver (1/2 share) said properties and fruits
thereof, spouses Bartolome had been delaying the partition and delivery means of unkept promises
and other excuses.
As a result, the plaintiffs suffered loss and damages amounting to ₱8,000.00.
Plaintiffs filed a petition for partition asking for ½ of the total value of the fruits and rents plus losses
and damages.
Vicenta likewise argued that spouses Bartolome are obliged to pay rents for their occupation of the
upper story of the house in Calle Escolta.
Gaspar uses the lower floor as his office.
RTC: Absolved the defendants from the complaints. They had not caused losses and damages to the
plaintiffs, and that the revenues and the expenses were compensated, in view of the fact that the
defendants had been living for several years in the Calle Escolta house, which was pro-indiviso property
of joint ownership.
ISSUE:
1. WON defendants were entitled to reside to the upper story without paying one-half of the rents
which the upper story would have produced, had it been rented to a stranger.
2. WON Vicenta should pay defendants the sum of ₱1,299.08 by way of counterclaim representing the
expenses incurred for the reconstruction ore repair due to the earthquake.
3. WON Gaspar must be paid a percentage as remuneration for being the administrator of the
property of common ownership.
4. WON the jewelries in possession of Vicenta should be divided.
5. WON plaintiffs are entitled to the sum of ₱ 910.50 - difference between the assessed value of the
undivided real properties and the price of the same as determined by the judicial expert appraiser.
HELD:
1. YES.
Article 394, CC (Art. 486, NCC)
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.
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, for
the reason that, 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.
Defendant Matilde, therefore, in occupying with her husband the upper floor of the said house, did not
injure the interests of her co-owner, her sister Vicenta, nor did she prevent the latter from living therein,
but merely exercised a legitimate right pertaining to her as co-owner of the property.
Hoewever, the defendant Bartolome must pay to the plaintiff Vicenta P384, that is, one-half of P768, the
total amount of the rents which should have been obtained during four years from the quarters
occupied as an office by the justice of the peace of Vigan.
2. YES.
The counterclaim is proper. However, the amount of ₱384.00, as payment of the rent for the lower floor
must be deducted therefrom, leaving the balance of ₱915.08.
The legal interest, however, cannot propsper. Until final disposal of the case, no such net sum can be
determined, nor until then can the debtor be deemed to be in arrears.
In order that there be an obligation to pay legal interest in connection with a matter at issue between
the parties, it must be declared in a judicial decision from what date the interest will be due on the
principal concerned in the suit.
The plaintiffs cannot be compelled to pay the legal interest from December 7, 1904, on the sum
expanded in the reconstruction of the aforementioned house, but only the interest fixed by law .
3. NO.
He administered the said pro indiviso property, one-half of which belonged to his wife who held it in
joint tenancy, with his sister-in-law, and the law does not allow him any compensation as such voluntary
administrator.
He is merely entitled to a reimbursement for such actual and necessary expenditures as he may have
made on the undivided properties and an indemnity for the damages he may have suffered while acting
in that capacity, since at all events it was his duty to care for and preserve the said property, half of
which belonged to his wife.
In exchange for the trouble occasioned him by the administration of his sister-in-law's half of the said
property, he with his wife resided in the upper story of the house aforementioned, without payment of
one-half of the rents said quarters might have produced had they been leased to another person.
4. NO.
Said jewelries were considered a gifts to Vicenta. Because, had she not done so, the will made by the
said deceased would have been exhibited in which the said jewelry would have been mentioned.
5. NO.
It is in accord with the law and principles of justice, for the reason that any of the co-owners of a pro
indiviso property, subject to division or sale, is entitled to petition for its valuation by competent expert
appraisers.
Such valuation is not prejudicial to any of the joint owners, but is beneficial to their interests,
considering that, as a general rule, the assessed value of a building or a parcel of realty is less than the
actual real value of the property, and this being appraiser to determine, in conjunction with the one
selected by the plaintiffs, the value of the properties of joint ownership.
Therefore it is improper now to claim a right to the collection of the said sum, the difference between
the assessed value and that fixed by the judicial expert appraiser, for the reason that the increase in
price, as determined by this latter appraisal, redounded to the benefit of both parties.
FACTS: Vicenta and Matilde owned in common a two-story house inherited form their mother. The
upper floor was used as a dwelling; the lower was available for rent by stores. If defendant spouses
Bartolome lives in a room of the upper floor, and uses a room of the lower floor as an office.
ISSUE: WON Vicenta can demand rent to Matilde.
HELD:
(a) No rent for the upper floor can be demanded, for Matilde was exercising her right as co-owner,
without prejudicing Vicenta who, had she wanted, could have also lived in another room of said
floor, and who therefore could not have been prejudiced.
(b) Half-rental may be demanded for the use of the lower floor as an office. Rent could be asked
because others could have rented the same, but only half should be given because Matilde was co-
owner.
