Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Pardell vs. Bartolome [L-4656 November 18, 1912]

Facts: Petitioner Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell and respondent Matilde Ortiz y Felin Bartolome were the existing heirs of the late Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin. On 1888, Matilde and co-defendant Gaspar de Bartolome y Escribano took it upon themselves without an judicial authorization or even extra judicial agreement the 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, Ilocos Sur; a lot in Magallanes Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; parcels of rice land in San Julian and Sta. Lucia; and parcels of land in Candon, Ilocos Sur. 

Vicenta filed an action in court asking that the 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, Gaspar are 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

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "Pardell vs. Bartolome [L-4656 November 18, 1912]"

Post a Comment