PARDELL V. BARTOLOME 23 PHIL.
450
DOCTRINE:
Article 394 of the Civil Code prescribes: Each coowner 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 coowners from utilizing them according to their rights.
FACTS:
Petitioner Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell and respondent Matilde Ortiz y Felin Bartolome were the
existing heirs of the late Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin. On 1888, Matilde and co-defendant Gaspar de
Bartolome y Escribano took it upon themselves without an judicial authorization or even extra judicial
agreement the administration of the properties of the late Calixta and Miguel. These propertiesincluded a
house in Escolta Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a house in Washington Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a lot in
Magallanes Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; parcels of rice land in San Julian and Sta. Lucia; and parcels of land
in Candon, Ilocos Sur. Vicenta filed an action in court asking that the judgement be rendered in restoring
and returning to them one half of the total value of the fruits and rents, plus losses and damages from the
aforementioned properties. However, respondent Matilde asserted that she never refused to give the
plaintiff her share of the said properties. Vicenta also argued that Matilde and her husband, Gaspar are
obliged to pay rent to the former for their occupation of the upper story of the house in Escolta Street.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Matilde and Gaspar are obliged to pay rent for their occupation of the said property.
RULING:
No. The Court ruled that the spouses are not liable to pay rent. Their occupation of the said property was
a mere exercise of their right to use the same as a co-owner. One of the limitations on a co-owner’s right
of use is that he must use it in such a way so as not to injure the interest of the other co-owners. In the
case at bar, the other party failed to provide proof that by the occupation of the spouses Bartolome, they
prevented Vicenta from utilizing the same.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
In consideration of the foregoing, whereby the errors assigned to the lower court have been duly refuted,
it is our opinion that, with a partial reversal of the judgment appealed from, in so far as it absolves the
plaintiffs from the counterclaim presented by the defendants, we should and hereby do sentence the
plaintiffs to the payment of the sum of P915.08, the balance of the sum claimed by the defendants as a
balance of the one-half of the amount which the defendants advanced for the reconstruction or repair of
the Calle Escolta house, after deducting from the total of such sum claimed by the latter the amount of
P384 which Gaspar de Bartolome, the husband of the defendant Matilde, should have paid as one-half of
the rents due for his occupation of the quarters on the lower floor of the said house as an office for the
justice of the peace court of Vigan; and we further find: (1) That the defendants are not obliged to pay
one-half of the rents which could have been obtained from the upper story of the said house; (2) that the
plaintiffs can not 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, at the rate of 6 per cent
per annum, from the date of the judgment to be rendered in accordance with this decision; (3) that the
husband of the defendant Matilde Ortiz is not entitled to any remuneration for the administration of the
pro indiviso property belonging to both parties; (4) that, neither is he entitled to collect from the plaintiffs
the sum of P910.50, the difference between the assessed valuation and the price set by the expert
appraisal solicited by the plaintiffs in their amendment to the complaint; and, (5) that no participation
shall be made of jewelry aforementioned now in the possession of the plaintiff Vicenta Ortiz. The said
judgment, as relates to the points appealed, is affirmed, in so far as its findings agree with those of this
decision, and is reversed, in so far as they do not. No special finding is made regarding the costs of both
instances. So ordered.
