PARDELL VS.

BARTOLOME [L-4656 NOVEMBER 18, 1912]

Facts: Petitioner Vicenta Ortiz y Fel in de Pardell and respondent

Matilde Ortiz y Felin Bartolome were theexisting heirs of the late Miguel
Ortiz and Calixta Felin. On1888,

Matilde and co-defendant Gaspar de Bartolome yEscribano took it upon

themselves without an judicial au th or i z a ti on o r ev en e x t r a jud i ci al
a g r e e me n t t h e administration of the properties of the late Calixta and
Miguel. These properties included a house in Escolta Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a
house in Washington Street, Vigan, I l o co s Su r ; a lo t in M a g al l an es
S t r e e t , Vig a n , I loc o s Sur; parcels of rice land in San Julian and Sta.
Lucia;and parcels of land in Candon, Ilocos Sur.

V i c e n t a f i l e d a n a c t i o n i n c o u r t a s k i n g t h a t t h e judgement be
rendered in restoring and returning to them one half of the total value of the
fruits and rents, plus losses and damages from the aforementioned
properties.

However, respondent Matilde asserted that she never refused to give the
plaintiff her share of the said properties. Vicenta also argued that Matilde and her
husband, Gasparare obliged to pay rent to the former for their occupation of the
upper story of the house in Escolta Street.

Issue: Whether or not Matilde and Gaspar are obliged to pay rent for their
occupation of the said property

Held: No. The Court ruled that the spouses are not liable to pay rent. Their
occupation of the said property was a mere exercise of their right to use the same as
a co-owner. One of the limitations on a co-owner’s right of use is that he must use
it in such a way so as not to injure the interest of the other co-owners. In the
case at bar, the other party failed to provide proof that by the occupation of
the spouses Bartolome, they prevented Vicenta from utilizing the same