This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Affirming these rights, the Court held in Aguilar v. Court of Appeals that:[30] | |||||
|
2014-03-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners who project themselves as prejudiced co-owners may bring a suit for partition, which is one of the modes of extinguishing co-ownership. Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and that each co-owner may demand at any time partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is concerned. Corollary to this rule, Article 498 of the Civil Code states that whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds accordingly distributed. This is resorted to (a) when the right to partition the property is invoked by any of the co-owners but because of the nature of the property, it cannot be subdivided or its subdivision would prejudice the interests of the co-owners, and (b) the co-owners are not in agreement as to who among them shall be allotted or assigned the entire property upon proper reimbursement of the co-owners.[22] This is the result obviously aimed at by petitioners at the outset. As already shown, this cannot be done while the co-ownership exists. | |||||