JOSE MARIA RAMIREZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, RITA D.RAMIREZ, BELEN T.

RAMIREZ, DAVID MARGOLIES, MANUEL UY & SONS,INC., BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, in its capacity as
judicial administrator of the Testate Estate of the late Jose Vivencio Ramirez, defendants-appellants, ANGELA M. BUTTE,
defendant-appellee
Ramirez vs. Ramirez / No. L-22621 (Sept. 29, 1967)
Concepcion, C.J. / kam

SUBJECT MATTER: Co-ownership > Rights of a co-owner as to thing owned in common > To ask for partition
CASE SUMMARY: Jose Ramirez (plaintiff-appellee) brought an action for the partition of a land that he co-owned with the
defendant-appellants. The trial court ruled in plaintiffs favor. The defendant-appellants brought this action to SC, contending that they
will suffer inestimable damage due to this partition. The SC held that no evidence was introduced to support such claim, that it does
not show that the buildings on the property will be rendered unserviceable after the partition, and that expenses should be
proportionately divided among all the parties who will benefit from such partition (in this case, ALL parties). CFI decision affirmed.

DOCTRINES:
Where no evidence is introduced to support a claim that a physical division of a property will cause inestimable damage to
the interest of the co-owners thereof, a court order requiring its division was proper.
Expenses of division to be defrayed by parties benefited - Since the segregation of the property in question inured to the
benefit not only of plaintiff but also of defendants, both parties must defray the incidental expenses.

FACTS:
A parcel of land at the Northwestern corner of Escolta street and Plaza Sta. Cruz, Manila (Lot 1 of Block 2120 of the
Cadastral Survey of Manila) belong pro indiviso1 to the plaintiff (1/6) and defendants (5/6).
The land contains the following: (1) Sta. Cruz Building a 2-storey commercial building on the Escolta side;
(2) a small 2-storey residential building on the Plaza Sta. Cruz side
Plaintiff brought an action in the CFI Manila for the partition of said parcel of land.

CFI Manila
Manuel Uy & Sons expressed its conformity to the partition if it can be done without great prejudice to the interest of the
parties. Defendant Butte also agreed to the partition prayed for.
Other defendants objected because of the theory that the partition is materially and legally impossible and would work
great harm and prejudice to the co-owners.
The lower court referred the matter to a Commission that will determine whether the party is susceptible of partition and that
will submit individual plans thereof; composed of:
(1) Delfin Gawaran (Deputy Clerk of the Court) as Chairman;
(2) Artemio Valencia (President of the Manila Board of Realtors), commissioner for plaintiff; and
(3) Ramon Cuervo (President of the Perpetual Investment Corporation Inc.), commissioner for defendants
The trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a segregation of his share and directed that the property be partitioned in
accordance with Valencias plan, and that the expenses be paid by both parties proportionately.
Hence, this appeal by the defendants except for Mrs. Butte.

ISSUES (HOLDING):
1. WON said property is susceptible of physical division (YES)
2. WON court erred in accepting commissioner Valencias recommendation instead of Cuervos or instead of the proposal made
by the very plaintiff (NO)
3. WON incidental expenses should be borne exclusively by the plaintiff (NO)

RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Defendant-appellants urged that a physical division of the property will cause inestimable damage to the interest of the co-
owners but they were unable to introduce evidence in support of this allegation. There is the assumption that a real estate
suitable for commercial purposes (like this one) is likely to suffer a proportionately great diminution in value when its area
becomes too small. Even if the 260.62 sqm part of the plaintiff is separated, the defendants will still have a total of 1,301.34
sqm left, which is not an inconsequential size for a lot in the very heart of Manila. The Court believes that the propertys
value would not be impaired because of the segregation as to warrant a conclusion that such property is indivisible.

2. Defendant-appellants argue that plaintiffs share should be sold to them instead of making the segregation. They cited Article
4952 of the Civil Code and assume once again that the alleged inestimable damage to be suffered by the property after the
segregation is equivalent to rendering it unserviceable for the use for which it is intended. There is nothing to show that after
segregating plaintiffs share, the buildings left on the 1,301.34 sqm would be unserviceable either for commercial or
 residential purposes. On the contrary, the plaintiff would not have insisted upon this partition if his share would be
unserviceable for either particularly the commercial purpose.

In fact, all the commissioners recommended the segregation of the property; they merely failed to agree on the precise
configuration thereof.
- Cuervo (defendants commissioner): Plaintiff be given a frontage of 6.14 lineal meters at Plaza Sta. Cruz According to
the Court, this plan would require a partition of the residential building which would render said building unserviceable
for the purpose for which it was intended.
- Commissioner of the court: Plaintiff be given a frontage of 12.66 sqm at said Plaza
- Valencia (the chosen one by the court; plaintiffs commissioner): The main objection of defendant-appellants to this
plan is that it left behind (as in at the back part of plaintiffs share) 169 sqm, which would have to be divided among the
defendants should they later wish to have their shares segregated as well. The plaintiff-appellee proposed to offset this by
expressing his desire to buy this remaining portion of the land at 1,000 pesos per sqm.

It does not show whether the proposal by plaintiff-appellee had not been taken into consideration by the lower court.
Defendants had not accepted it. Neither do they accept it now, for they would want the plaintiff to pay a higher price. The
Court held that this 169 sqm disadvantage is offset by the fact that the plaintiff was denied of around 40m frontage on Plaza
Sta. Cruz and 24.13m frontage on Escolta Street (most valuable one).

3. It is obvious that the segregation of plaintiffs share inures to the benefit not only of the plaintiff, but, also, of the defendants,
and that both should, consequently, defray the incidental expenses.

DISPOSITIVE: CFI decision affirmed, costs against defendants-appellants.

NOTES:
1
Pro indiviso is a concept in property law that describes common or undivided property ownership.
2
Article 495: xx Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article, the co-owners cannot demand a physical division of the
thing owned in common, when to do so would render it unserviceable for the use for which it is intended. But the coownership may be
terminated in accordance with article 498.