Article 485. The Share of The Co-Owners, in The Benefits As Well As in The Charges
Article 485. The Share of The Co-Owners, in The Benefits As Well As in The Charges
Article 485. The Share of The Co-Owners, in The Benefits As Well As in The Charges
I. Civil Code
a. Marriages took place before Aug 3, 1988
b. CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS
i. EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP
ii. His is His
iii. Her is Her
iv. UPON MARRIAGE, Fruits of the separate properties form part of the CONJUGAL
PROPERTY which they become CO-OWNERS
v. Should the union END, the exclusive properties GO BACK to being SOLELY
OWNED
vi. Both can dispose their exclusive properties even WITHOUT CONSENT from the
other party
vii. Anything that will be earned by the separated properties will also no longer be
considered conjugal
viii. While properties acquired during the marriage is considered conjugal, thus
mutual consent is required for their disposal.
II. CO-OWNERSHIP
a. Article 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or
right belongs to different persons. In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-
ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this Title.
b. Article 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges,
shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the
contrary shall be void. The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership
shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.
c. We uphold the right of Valentina and Valeriana to thereby alienate their
pro indiviso shares to Sebastian and Tarcila even without the knowledge
or consent of their co-owner Cornelio because the alienation covered the
disposition of only their respective interests in the common property.
According to Article 493 of the Civil Code, each co-owner "shall have the
full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto,
and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute
another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are
involved," but "the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect
to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to
him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership." Hence, the
petitioners as the successors-in-interest of Cornelio could not validly assail
the alienation by Valentina and Valeriana of their shares in favor of the
respondents