Case Digest (G.R. No. 72188)
Facts:
Rodolfo Eusebio v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Rohimust Santos, G.R. No. 72188, September 15, 1986, First Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns co-ownership of an 811.30 sq. m. parcel of land (the LOT) in La Loma, Quezon City. In 1981 petitioner Rodolfo sued co-owner Rohimust in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City for determination of their participations and for actual partition. The trial court rendered judgment ordering partition of the LOT: 611.30 sq. m. to Rodolfo and 200 sq. m. to Rohimust, and directed that any improvement encroaching on the portion allotted to the other party be demolished. The trial court did not provide for compensation for demolished improvements.
Rodolfo’s title traces from a contract to sell executed by J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. (represented by GA, Inc.). On April 15, 1974, leasehold rights were placed in the names of Rodolfo (383 sq. m.) and Fernando J. Santos, Jr. (428.30 sq. m.), and a Contract to Sell was executed in favor of Rodolfo. An affidavit of July 2, 1974, showed a joint purchase and pro rata payment obligation, with an understanding of eventual subdivision. When Fernando failed to pay his full share, Rodolfo advanced installments; the parties agreed in 1976 that overdue payments of Fernando would be advanced by Rodolfo, with terms for interest and subdivision according to payment. Full payment to GA, Inc. was made in 1978 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 244154 was issued solely in Rodolfo’s name. Fernando later transferred his rights to Rohimust.
On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court initially affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. On motion for reconsideration by Rohimust, the appellate tribunal amended its resolution, holding that Rohimust “has the legal right to retain the house together with its improvements and the possession thereof until full payment of the value ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Intermediate Appellate Court properly modify the trial court’s judgment by applying Article 546 of the Civil Code to allow Rohimust to retain the house and improvements until full payment of their value?
- Upon actual partition, is each co-owner deemed to have had exclusive possession of the part allotted to him for the entire period of co-possession, such that improvements within the allotted part may be kept or demolished witho...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)