In Engreso v. De la Cruz, the Supreme Court clarified the rights of co-owners in jointly held properties, particularly concerning physical possession and division. The court affirmed that while a co-owner has the right to their ideal share of the entire property, they cannot claim a specific portion until formal partition. This means a co-owner cannot exclude another co-owner from any specific part of the property before the co-ownership is legally dissolved.

Dividing Lines: Can a Co-Owner Claim Exclusive Possession Before Partition?

This case arose from a dispute between two sisters, Hermogena Engreso and Nestoria de la Cruz, over a parcel of land and the residential/commercial building standing thereon. Nestoria claimed ownership of one-half of the property based on a deed of sale from Hermogena. The trial court initially sided with Nestoria, ordering Hermogena to deliver possession of half the property and half the building. However, the Supreme Court, while affirming Nestoria’s co-ownership, modified the decision regarding the building. The central legal question was whether a co-owner could demand possession of a specific portion of a jointly owned structure before the formal partition of the property.

The Supreme Court grounded its decision on the fundamental principles of co-ownership under Philippine civil law. The Court emphasized that before a property owned in common is actually partitioned, each co-owner possesses only an **ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire property**. Building on this principle, the Court clarified that a co-owner cannot demand a concrete, specific, or determinate part of the thing owned in common because until division is effected, their right over the thing is represented only by an ideal portion.

A co-owner has no right to demand a concrete, specific or determinate part of the thing owned in common because until division is effected his right over the thing is represented only by an ideal portion.

Furthermore, the Court explained the implications of a co-owner bringing an action against another co-owner. Such an action can only lead to the recognition of the co-ownership itself. This approach contrasts with actions seeking exclusive possession or control over a specific part of the property. As a co-owner has a right to possess the shared property, the plaintiff cannot recover any material or determinate part of the property.

In this case, although Nestoria was indeed the sole owner of a specified portion of the land, she was only a co-owner of the structure standing thereon. The building had been constructed by the sisters’ deceased father, Romeo Gallejoma. This fact introduces succession law into the matter, creating a dynamic relationship between property rights and inheritance rights.

Following the rules on succession, and absent any proof that Romeo’s estate had been judicially or extrajudicially partitioned, all of his surviving heirs inherited rights to the building at the moment of his death. Leon Gallejoma’s testimony should not prejudice and bind the other heirs who have not relinquished their rights over the aforesaid building.

The ruling further clarified that Hermogena’s mortgage of the entire property only affected her share, leaving Nestoria’s and the other heirs’ shares unaffected. This underscores the importance of understanding the derivative nature of property rights in co-ownership situations. The Court effectively separated ownership of the land from the building, recognizing Nestoria’s distinct rights to the land and her shared rights to the building.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a co-owner could demand exclusive possession of a specific portion of a jointly-owned property before the property had been formally partitioned.
What is an ‘ideal share’ in co-ownership?	An ideal share refers to a co-owner’s proportionate interest in the entire property, which is abstract until the property is divided. This share does not correspond to a specific physical part of the property.
Can a co-owner exclude another co-owner from any part of the property?	No, a co-owner cannot exclude another co-owner from any specific portion of the property before partition, as each has the right to possess the whole property.
What happens if a co-owned property is mortgaged by one co-owner?	If one co-owner mortgages the property, the mortgage only affects their share and does not bind the other co-owners.
How does inheritance affect co-ownership rights?	When a property is inherited, all heirs become co-owners with rights to the property from the moment of the decedent’s death, absent a formal partition.
What action can a co-owner bring against another co-owner?	A co-owner can bring an action to recognize the co-ownership but cannot claim a specific portion of the property in such an action.
What happens after a property is partitioned?	After partition, each former co-owner becomes the exclusive owner of their specific, allocated portion of the property.
Did the court uphold the validity of the deed of sale in this case?	Yes, the court upheld the validity of the deed of sale, confirming Nestoria’s ownership of the land, but clarified her rights regarding the building.

This decision underscores the importance of formalizing property divisions and understanding the limitations of co-ownership rights. Clear legal action is required to dissolve co-ownership and give individuals defined ownership of physical property.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Engreso v. De la Cruz, G.R No. 148727, April 09, 2003