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,
Case Doctrines:
Hereditary succession gives rise to co-ownership. "Each co-owner may use the things owned in common, provided
he uses them in accordance with their object andin such manner as not to injure the interests of the community nor
prevent the co-owners from utilizing themaccording to their rights." (Article 394 of the Civil Code, now Art. 486).
Matilde Ortiz and her husband occupied the upper story, designed for use as a dwelling, in the house of joint
ownership; but the record shows no proof that, by so doing, the said Matilde occasioned any detriment tothe
interests of the community property, nor that she prevented her sister Vicenta from utilizing the said upperstory
according to her rights. It is to be noted that the stores of the lower floor were rented and an accountingof the rents
was duly made to the plaintiffs.Each co-owner of realty held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the whole
property and may use andenjoy the same with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his
coowners, for thereason that, until a division be made, the respective part of each holder can not be determined and
every one of the coowners exercises together with his other coparticipants, joint ownership over the pro indiviso
property, inaddition to his use and enjoyment of the same.
Co-owner not required to pay rent upon using the co-owned property; stranger to pay rent ; Gaspar de Bartolome,
occupied for four years a room or a part of the lower floor of the same house on Calle Escolta, using it as an office
for the justice of the peace, a position which he held in the capital of thatprovince, strict justice requires that he pay
his sister-in-law, the plaintiff, one-half of the monthly rent which thesaid quarters could have produced, had they
been leased to another person. Xxx even as the husband of thedefendant coowner of the property, he had no right to
occupy and use gratuitously the said part of the lower floor of the house in question, where he lived with his wife, to
the detriment of the plaintiff Vicenta who did notreceive one-half of the rent which those quarters could and should
have produced, had they been occupied by astranger, in the same manner that rent was obtained from the rooms on
the lower floor that were used asstores.
FACTS:
This is an Appeal by bill of exceptions (certiorari).
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 judicial authorization, nor friendly or extrajudicial agreement, took upon
themselves the administration and enjoyment of the properties left by Calixta and collected the rents, fruits, and
products thereof, to the serious detriment of Vicentas interest These properties included 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.
Despite repeated demands to divide the properties and the fruits accruing therefrom and to deliver to the
latter the one-half thereof, together with one-half of the fruits and rents collected therefrom, Sps Gaspar and Matilde
had been delaying the partition and delivery of the said properties by means of unkempt promises and other excuses.
So they filed a case asking that the plaintiffs, on account of the extraordinary delay in the delivery of one-half of
said properties, or their value in cash, as the case might be, had suffered losses and damages in the sum of P8,000.
So plaintiffs wanted to recover P8, 000 damages due to delay and to recognize the plaintiff Vicenta Ortiz to be
vested with the full and absolute right of ownership to the said undivided one-half of the properties in question, as
universal testamentary heir thereof together with the defendant Matilde Ortiz, to indemnify the plaintiffs in the sum
of P8,000, for losses and damages, and to pay the costs.
RTC: absolved defendants because revenues and the 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, and absolved the defendants from the complaint and the plaintiffs from the counterclaim, with
no special finding as to costs.
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. The motion was
denied by the lower court. Thus, this petition.

ISSUE:
WON a co-owner is required to pay for rent in exclusively using the co-owned property.
RULING:
Article 394 of the Civil Code prescribes:"Each co-owner may use the things owned in common, provided he uses
them in accordance with their object andin such manner as not to injure the interests of the community nor prevent
the co-owners from utilizing them according to their rights."
Matilde Ortiz and her husband occupied the upper story, designed for use as a dwelling, in the house of joint
ownership; but the record shows no proof that, by so doing, the said Matilde occasioned any detriment tothe
interests of the community property, nor that she prevented her sister Vicenta from utilizing the said upperstory
according to her rights. It is to be noted that the stores of the lower floor were rented and an accountingof the rents
was duly made to the plaintiffs.Each co-owner of realty held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the whole
property and may use andenjoy the same with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his
coowners, for thereason that, until a division be made, the respective part of each holder can not be determined and
every one of the coowners exercises together with his other co-participants, joint ownership over the pro indiviso
property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the same.
As the hereditary properties of the joint ownership of the two sisters, Vicenta Ortiz, plaintiff, and Matilde Ortiz,
defendant, were situated in the Province of Ilocos Sur, and were in the care of the last named, assisted by her
husband, while the plaintiff Vicenta with her husband was residing outside of the said province the greaterpart of the
time between 1885 and 1905, when she left for Spain, it is not at all strange that delays and difficulties should have
attended the efforts made to collect the rents and proceeds from the property held incommon and to obtain a
partition of the latter, especially during several years when, owing to the insurrection, the country was in a turmoil;
and for this reason, aside from that founded on the right of co-ownership of the defendants, who took upon
themselves the administration and care of the property of joint tenancy for purposes of their preservation and
improvement, these latter are not obliged to pay to the plaintiff Vicenta one-half of the rents which might have been
derived from the upper story of the said house on Calle Escolta, and, much less,because one of the living rooms and
the storeroom thereof were used for the storage of some belongings and effects of common ownership between the
litigants.
The 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 a co-owner of the property.