Pardell vs. Bartolome Facts: Petitioner Vic enta Ortiz y Fel in 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 Mi guel. These properties included a house in Escolta S treet, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; ahouse 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 Held: 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 t he spouses Bartolome, they prev ented Vicenta from utilizing the same. Resuena vs. CA Facts: Private Respondent is the co-owner and overseer of certain parcels of land located in Pooc, Talisay, Cebu, designated as Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 of the Talisay-Manglanilla Estate. He developed portions of lots nos. 2587 and 2592 occupied by him into a resortas the Borromeo Beach Resort. In his desire to expand and extend the facilities of the resort that he established on the subject properties respondent demanded that petitioners vacate the property. Petitioners however refused to vacate their homes. Hence, respondent filed a complaint for ejectment with the MTC against the petitioners. The MTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that respondent had no right to evict petitioners therefrom, RTC reversed the former’s decision, the CA affirmed. Hence th is petition. Issue: Whether the private respondent has the right to eject the petitioners. Held: Yes. Article 487 of the Civil Code, which provides simply that “any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment,” is a categorical and an unqualified authority in favor of respondent to evict petitioners from the portions of Lot NO. 2587. This provision is a departure from Palarca vs. Baguisi, which held that an action for ejectment must be brought by all the co-owners. Thus, a co-owner may bring an action to exercise and protect the rights of all. When the action is brought by one co-owner for the benefit of all, a favorable decision will benefit them; but an adverse decision cannot prejudice their rights. Acabal vs. Acabal Facts: Villaner Acabal’s parents owned a parcel of land situated in Barrio Tanglad, Manjuyod, Negros Oriental. By a Deed of Absolute Sale, his parents transferred for Php 2,000 ownership of the said land to him, who was then married to Justiniana Lipajan. Sometime after the foregoing transfer, it appears that Villaner became a widower. Subsequently, he executed a deed conveying the same property in favor of Leonardo. Villaner was later to claim that document now appears to be a “deed of absolute sale”. Thus, he filed a c omplaint against Leonardo and Ramon Nicolas in turn conveyed the property, for annulment of the deeds of sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint, the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court. Hence, this petition. Issue:
