DE GUIA VS CA, ABEJO

FACTS:
The subject of the dispute in this case was the 2 undivided parcels of land used as a
FISHPOND. The property was originally co-owned by Primitiva Lejano and Lorenza Abejo.
Teofilo Abejo inherited the portion of such undivided land from his parents.
De Guia, through a Contract of Lease, acquired possession of the entire land.
Jose Abejo, through a sale entered by him and his father (Teofilo Abejo), acquired
ownership of the portion.
Despite the expiration of the lease contract, De Guia remained in possession of the entire
lot without paying any rent.
Jose Abejo filed a complaint for recovery of possession. Abejo wanted De Guia to vacate
the portion and to pay damages in the form of rent.

ISSUES:

1.)w/ Abejo can demand payment of rent? YES

2.)w/ Abejo can demand De Guia to vacate? NO

RULING:
1.) Abejo can demand payment of rent. According to Article 485 co-owners will share in
the benefits (as well as charges) proportional to their respective interests.. Abejo as a co-owner,
he has the right to use, right to enjoy and the right to the fruits over the subject property. Since
De Guia retained exclusive possession of the subject property, Abejo has the right to demand
rent for the portion of the land.
2.) De Guia cannot be compelled to vacate. As provided in Article 486, each co-owner may
use the thing owned in common. Since both Abejo and De Guia are co-owners, they have the
right to use the entire property. Thus, Abejo cannot compel De Guia to vacate the portion until
co-ownership exists.