Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CATAPANG
ownership. And under this regime, they
owned their properties in common "in equal
Facts: With the of Norma Maligaya, Teofila shares."
ARAMBO V. NOLASCO
exclusively with each other as husband and 1) Petitioners Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita
wife without the benefit of marriage or under A. Dela Cruz, along with their mother
a void marriage, their wages and salaries Rosita vda. De Arambulo, and siblings
shall be owned by them in equal shares and Primo V. Arambulo, Ma. Lorenza A.
the property acquired by both of them L o p e z , A n a M a r i a V. A r a m b u l o ,
through their work or industry shall be Maximiano V. Arambulo, Julio V.
governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Arambulo and Iraida Arambulo Nolasco
are co-owners of a 233 sq.m. Land in
In the absence of proof to the contrary, Tondo, Manila.
properties acquired while they lived together 2) When their mother died, she was
shall be presumed to have been obtained by succeeded by her husband, Genero
their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall Nolasco and their children.
be owned by them in equal shares. For 3) On January 8, 1999, petitioners filed for
purposes of this Article, a party who did not relief alleging that all co-owners, except
participate in the acquisition by other party for Nolasco, have authorized to sell their
of any property shall be deemed to have respective shares to the properties,
contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if saying that in the Civil Code, if one or
the former's efforts consisted in the care and more co-owners shall withhold their
maintenance of the family and of the consent to the alterations in the thing
household.
owned in common, the courts may afford
adequate relief.
The law is clear. In the absence, as here, of 4) Respondents sought the dismissal of the
proofs to the contrary, any property acquired petition for being premature.
by common-law spouses during their period Respondents averred that they were not
of cohabitation is presumed to have been aware of the intention of the petitioners
obtained thru their joint efforts and is owned to sell the properties they co-owned
by them in equal shares. Their property because they were not called to
relationship is governed by the rules on co- participate in any negotiations regarding
ownership. And under this regime, they the disposition of the property.
owned their properties in common "in equal 5) RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners and
shares." Being herself a co-owner of the ordered respondents to give their
structure in question, Juliet, as correctly consent to sale. Respondents filed a
ruled by the CA, may not be ejected notice of appeal to the CA. CA reversed
therefrom.
the RTC.
True it is that under Article 487 of the Civil Issue: WON respondents, as co-owners, can
Code, a co-owner may bring an action for be compelled by the court to give their
ejectment against a co-owner who takes consent to the sale of their shares in the co-
exclusive possession and asserts exclusive owned properties
EDC V. SAMSON-BICO