Case Summary (G.R. No. 126529)
Factual Summary
– Properties: Two urban houses (Escolta and Washington Streets), a lot on Magallanes Street, a rice land in San Julián, a rice land in Santa Lucia, and three parcels in Candon. Total appraised value ₱7,896.
– Administration: From about 1888, without judicial authorization or agreement, defendants collected rents and managed the properties, using the upper story of the Escolta house as their residence and a lower‐floor room as a justice of the peace office.
– Repair Work: An 1897 earthquake destroyed the Escolta house. Defendants spent ₱6,252.32 on reconstruction; they collected ₱3,654.15 in rents from all properties through August 1, 1905, leaving an unrecovered balance of ₱2,598.17.
Claims and Defenses
Plaintiffs alleged (1) defendants wrongfully delayed partition, withheld rents and fruits, and damaged their interests; (2) demand for one‐half of the value or partition plus ₱8,000 indemnity. Defendants denied refusal to partition, admitted joint heirship, offered half the appraised value, and counterclaimed for ₱1,299.08 as net repair costs, plus administration fees.
Trial Court Proceedings
– Plaintiffs amended complaint to specify assessed value and appraisal mechanism; amendment admitted over defendants’ objection.
– Expert appraisers were appointed; interim agreement allowed either party to purchase specific tracts at appraisal value.
– After provisional division, defendants offered plaintiffs ₱3,212.50 to settle pro indiviso accounts.
Trial Court Judgment
The court found revenues and expenses compensated by defendants’ residence in the jointly owned property, inflicted no loss or damages on plaintiffs, and absolved both sides without special finding on costs.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether defendants owe plaintiffs one‐half of the rents from the upper story of the Escolta house.
- Whether plaintiffs must reimburse defendants for net repair expenses.
- Whether Gaspar de Bartolome is entitled to an administration fee.
- Whether the jewelry allegedly gifted by their mother requires further partition.
- Whether the amendment admitting assessed valuation was improper, entitling defendants to additional payment.
Co-ownership and Occupation of Joint Realty
Under Civil Code Article 394, each co-owner may use common property so long as it does not injure the community or impair co-owners’ rights. Matilde and her husband legitimately resided in the upper floor without precluding Vicenta’s use, and the lower floor stores were duly rented, with proceeds accounted. Accordingly, defendants owe no half‐rent for the upper story.
Accountability for Office Use by Justice of the Peace
Gaspar de Bartolome occupied a lower‐floor room as a justice of the peace from 1901 to 1905. Such gratuitous occupation, unlike the dwelling use by his co-owner wife, conferred no co-ownership right to him. He must therefore pay Vicenta one‐half of the rent that room would have produced (₱16/month), totaling ₱384 over four years.
Reimbursement for Earthquake Repairs
Defendants proved ₱6,252.32 in repair expenses and ₱3,654.15 in collected rents. The unrecovered ₱2,598.17 was advanced by defendants and is recoverable from plaintiffs as one-half of the net expenditure. Deducting the ₱384 Bartolome liability yields a balance of ₱915.00 payable by Vicenta. Interest on this sum awaits final judgment and accrues at the legal rate (6% p.a.) from that
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 126529)
Facts
- Ricardo Pardell y Cruz (absent in Spain) and Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell are sisters and plaintiffs.
- Matilde Ortiz y Felin de Bartolome and her husband, Gaspar de Bartolome y Escribano, are defendants.
- Their mother, Calixta Felin, executed a nuncupative will in August 1876, naming her four children as universal heirs.
- Two heirs (Manuel and Francisca) predeceased without issue, leaving Vicenta and Matilde as sole heirs.
- Testatrix’s real properties in Vigan and nearby pueblos: two townhouses, multiple lots, and rice lands, appraised at a total of ₱7,896.00.
- From early 1888, defendants took administration and enjoyment of these properties without judicial authorization or agreement.
- Plaintiffs allege non-partition, retention of rents and fruits, and seek delivery of half their value plus ₱8,000 damages.
Procedural History
- June 8, 1905: Plaintiffs filed complaint for delivery of half the value (approx. ₱3,948) or recognition of Vicenta’s full undivided one-half interest, indemnity of ₱8,000, and costs.
- Defendants denied material allegations, admitted some facts with corrections, and offered to pay half the appraised value (₱3,948).
- Defendants’ special defense asserted past collections (₱1,278.95), expenses (₱1,141.71), and reconstruction costs (₱5,091.52), resulting in net advance of ₱2,598.17, half of which is ₱1,299.08 due from plaintiffs.
- Defendants counterclaimed for ₱1,299.08 plus interest and administrator’s fees.
- August 21, 1905: Plaintiffs moved to amend complaint to provide for court-appointed appraisers and clarify relief; motion granted over defendants’ objection.
- Partition valuation proceedings and incidental awards took place in lower court.
- October 5, 1907: Trial court absolved defendants from the complaint and plaintiffs from the counterclaim, without special finding as to costs.
- Defendants filed bill of exceptions and appeal for alleged legal and factual errors.
Plaintiffs’ Claims
- Recognition of Vicenta as universal heir of undivided one-half interest or delivery of cash equivalent (approx. ₱3,948).
- Indemnity of ₱8,000 for losses and damages due to delay and retention of rents, fruits, and