Pardell vs. Bartolome

A co-owner has the right to use and enjoy the entire common property, provided such use is in accordance with the property's nature and does not prejudice the interests of the co-ownership or prevent other co-owners from exercising their rights. A co-owner is entitled to reimbursement from other co-owners for necessary and useful expenses incurred for the preservation or improvement of the common property.

The plaintiffs and defendants are sisters who inherited real properties from their mother. The defendants, residing in the Philippines, administered the properties. The plaintiff, residing abroad for much of the time, sought judicial partition and an accounting of rents and profits. The defendants admitted the co-ownership but counterclaimed for reimbursement for major reconstruction expenses on one of the houses.

• Filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Ilocos Sur.
• The CFI rendered judgment on October 5, 1907, absolving both parties from the respective complaint and counterclaim.
• The defendants appealed via a bill of exceptions to the Supreme Court.

• Vicenta Ortiz (plaintiff) and Matilde Ortiz (defendant) are recognized natural daughters and co-heirs of their mother, Calixta Felin.
• The mother's will made them sole heirs of several properties.
• The defendants (Matilde and her husband, Gaspar de Bartolome) administered the properties from approximately 1888.
• In 1897, the house on Escolta Street was destroyed by an earthquake. The defendants spent P6,252.32 to reconstruct it.
• The plaintiffs filed a complaint for partition, delivery of half the properties, and damages (P8,000) for the defendants' exclusive use.
• The defendants filed a counterclaim for reimbursement of half the reconstruction expenses (P1,299.08), arguing the collected rents (P3,654.15) did not cover the costs.

• The defendants wrongfully took exclusive administration and enjoyment of the common properties.
• The defendants refused demands for partition and delivery of the plaintiff's share.
• The plaintiffs suffered losses and damages due to the delay and the defendants' exclusive use.

• They never refused to partition the property and had solicited it years before.
• They were entitled to reimbursement for necessary reconstruction expenses (P6,252.32) incurred after the 1897 earthquake.
• The collected rents (P3,654.15) were insufficient to cover these expenses, leaving a balance of P2,598.17, of which the plaintiff owed half (P1,299.08).
• They were entitled to legal interest on the reimbursable amount and a percentage as remuneration for administration.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the defendants are liable to pay rent to the plaintiff for their use of the upper story of the co-owned house on Escolta Street.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is liable to reimburse the defendants for half of the expenses incurred in reconstructing the same house.
  3. Whether the defendants are entitled to legal interest on the reimbursable amount from the date of their accounting.
  4. Whether the defendant Gaspar de Bartolome is entitled to remuneration for administering the co-owned properties.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  1. No. The defendants, as co-owners, had a right to use the common property. Their use of the upper story as a dwelling did not injure the co-ownership interest nor prevent the plaintiff from using it. Therefore, they are not liable for rent for that portion.
  2. Yes. The reconstruction was a necessary expense for the preservation of the common property. The plaintiff, as co-owner, must reimburse the defendants for half of the proven expenses (P6,252.32). After deducting the rent owed by the defendant's husband (see point 3), the net amount due from the plaintiff is P915.08.
  3. No. Legal interest on the reimbursable amount is not due from the date of the extrajudicial accounting (Dec. 7, 1904). Interest begins to run only from the date of the SC's final judgment, as the obligation to pay was uncertain until then.
  4. No. The defendant Gaspar de Bartolome acted as a voluntary administrator (officious manager). In the absence of a stipulation, he is not entitled to remuneration. His right is limited to reimbursement for necessary expenses and damages, which was already addressed.

• Right of Co-owners to Use Common Property (Article 394, Civil Code) — Each co-owner may use the common property provided it is in accordance with its nature and does not injure the interests of the co-ownership or prevent other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The SC applied this to hold that Matilde Ortiz could reside in the common house without paying rent.
• Reimbursement for Necessary Expenses — A co-owner who incurs necessary expenses for the preservation of common property is entitled to reimbursement from the other co-owners for their proportionate share. The SC applied this to allow the defendants' counterclaim for the house reconstruction costs.
• Voluntary (Officious) Administration — A person who voluntarily manages the property of another without authority is generally not entitled to compensation, only to reimbursement for expenses and indemnity for damages. The SC used this to deny the claim for administrative remuneration.

• "Each coowner of realty held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his coowners."
• "The law does not allow him any compensation as such voluntary administrator. He is merely entitled to a reimbursement for such actual and necessary expenditures as he may have made on the undivided properties..."

• Spanish Supreme Court Decisions (April 24, 1867; Nov. 19, 1869; Feb. 22, 1901) — Cited for the rule that legal interest on a contested amount in a lawsuit runs only from the date of the judicial decision that finally determines the obligation.

• Article 394, Civil Code — Codifies the right of co-owners to use common property.
• Articles 1108, 1109, 1110, Civil Code — Relate to the obligation to pay interest and when interest becomes due. The SC interpreted these to mean interest on a judicially contested sum starts from the date of final judgment.