MANUEL T. DE GUIA vs.

COURT OF APPEALS (Former Sixth Division)

and JOSE B. ABEJO, represented by his Attorney-in-
Fact, Hermenegilda Abejo-Rivera
G.R. No. 120864. October 8, 2003
CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:
The subject of the dispute in this case was the 2 undivided parcels of land
used as a FISHPOND. The property was originally co-owned by Primitiva
Lejano and Lorenza Abejo. Teofilo Abejo inherited the ½ portion of such
undivided land from his parents. De Guia, through a Contract of Lease,
acquired possession of the entire land. Jose Abejo, through a sale entered by
him and his father (Teofilo Abejo), acquired ownership of the ½
portion.Despite the expiration of the lease contract, De Guia remained in
possession of the entire lot without paying any rent. Jose Abejo filed a
complaint for recovery of possession. Abejo wanted De Guia to vacate the ½
portion and to pay damages in the form of rent.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether Abejo can demand payment of rent? YES
2.) Whether Abejo can demand De Guia to vacate? NO
RULING:
1.) Abejo can demand payment of rent. According to Article 485 co-
owners will share in the benefits (as well as charges) proportional to their
respective interests.. Abejo as a co-owner, he has the right to use, right to
enjoy and the right to the fruits over the subject property. Since De Guia
retained exclusive possession of the subject property, Abejo has the right to
demand rent for the ½ portion of the land.
2.) De Guia cannot be compelled to vacate. As provided in Article 486,
each co-owner may use the thing owned in common. Since both Abejo and
De Guia are co-owners, they have the right to use the entire property. Thus,
Abejo cannot compel De Guia to vacate the ½ portion until co-ownership
exists.