Co-ownership doctrines

Neither of the co-owner has the right of legal redemption against the other
right of legal redemption is not limited solely and exclusively to original co-owners but applies as well to
those who subsequently acquire the respective shares of the co-owners while the community exists.
According to the stipulated facts the plaintiffs organized a partnership of a civil nature because each of
them put up money to buy a sweepstakes ticket for the sole purpose of dividing equally the prize which
they may win,The partnership was not only formed, but upon the organization thereof and the winning
of the prizeAll these circumstances repel the idea that the plaintiffs organized and formed a community
of property only. Having organized and constituted a partnership of a civil nature, the said entity is the
one bound to pay the income tax There is no merit in plaintiffs' contention that the tax should be
prorated among them and paid individually, resulting in their exemption from the tax.
whether by the construction of a house on the lot owned in common by the Jaymes, and sold by them
to the appellant corporation, the land in question or a 1/13th part of it became conjugal property. Since
the share of the wife, Luz Jayme, was at no time physically determined, it can not be validly claimed that
the house constructed by her husband was built on land belonging to her,Certainly, on her 1/13th ideal
or abstract undivided share, no house could be erected. Necessarily, the claim of conversion of the
wife's share from paraphernal to conjugal in character as a result of the construction must be rejected
for lack of factual or legal basis.
no individual co-owner can claim title to any def inite portion of the land or thing owned in common
until the partition thereof.
The right of action for recovery pertaining to each cowner, derived from the right of ownership
inherent in the cownership, can be exercised not only against strangers, but against the cowners
themselves when the latter perform with respect to the thing held in common acts for their exclusive
benefit, or of exclusive ownership, or which are prejudicial to, and in violation of, the right of the
community.
the two sales mentioned in the opinion having been made without the consent of all the cowners, the
same have no effect, except as to the portion belonging to those who made them.
DISABILITY OF A COWNER DOES NOT SAVE ANOTHER COWNER
cowner in joint tenancy can not dispose of his share or interest in the property which is the subject
matter of the joint tenancy, without the consent of the other cowner because in so doing he prejudices
the other's rights and interests.
tenants in common (different from joint tenancy ) hold an individual, undivided ownership interest in
the property. This means that each party has the right to alienate, or transfer the ownership of, her
ownership interest
Property acquired by a man while living with a common-law wife during the subsistance of his marriage
is conjugal property of the legal wife and him, even when the property was titled in the name of the
common-law wife.
Payment of land taxes by one co-owner does not constitute repudiation of co-ownership
no co-ownership exists between parties to an adulterous relationshipwe expounded on this doctrine by
declaring that in such a relationship, it is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual
contribution to the acquisition of property in order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it.
Presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply.
A man and a woman who are not legally capacitated to marry each other, but who nonetheless live
together conjugally, may be deemed co-owners of a property acquired during the cohabitation only
upon proof that each made an actual contribution to its acquisition.
Presumption of co-ownership only applies to a relationship between a man and a woman who are not
incapacitated to marry each other, or to one in which the marriage of the other half is void from the
beginning.
Each coowner or tenant in common of undivided realty has the same rights therein as the others; he
may use and enjoy the same without other limitation except that he must not prej-udice the rights of his
coowners, but until a division is effected, the respective parts belonging to each can not be determined;
each coowner exercises joint dominion and is entitled to joint use.
If a co-owner rents a portion of the house which is not used for living quarters he must pay the outher
coowners in prorata the income produced by renting such.
None of the owners shall, without the consent of the others, make any alterations in the common
property even though such alterations might be advantageous to all."
Far from violating the prohibition against a co-owner being obliged to remain a party to the community,
the contract precisely has for its purpose and object the dissolution of the co-ownership and of the
community by selling the parcel held in common and dividing the proceeds of the sale among the co-
owners. The obligation imposed in the contract to preserve the co-ownership until all the lots shall have
been sold is a mere incident (this is a violation of art 400 civil code) to the main object of dissolving the
co-ownership.