Property Case Digest | Ramirez v. Ramirez
Ramirez v. Ramirez
21 SCRA 384
Facts:
Plaintiff brought this action against defendants for the partition of a parcel of land situated at the Northwestern corner of Escolta street and Plaza Sta. Cruz, manila – 1/6 to the plaintiff and 5/6 to the defendants
Manuel Uy & Sons expressed its conformity to the partition, “if the same can be done without great prejudice to the interests of the parties”. Defendant Butte agreed to the partition prayed for. The other defendants objected to the physical partition of the property in question, upon the theory that said partition is “materially and legally” impossible and “would work great harm and prejudice to the co-owners.
Court rendered a decision declaring that plaintiff is entitled to the segregation of his share, and directing that the property be partitioned in accordance with the plan submitted by Commissioner Valencia.
Issue:
1. Whether or not a physical division of the property will cause “inestimable damage” to the interest of the co-owners.
2. Whether or not the physical division of property will render the deficient share unserviceable either for commercial of for residential purposes.
Held:
1. No evidence in support of this allegation. If the plaintiff’s share of 260.26 square meters were segregated from the property in question, there would still remain a lot of 1,301.34 square meters for appellants herein and Mrs. Butte. A real estate of this size, in the very heart of Manila, is not, however, inconsequential, in comparison to that of the present property of the community. The value would not be impaired, on account of the segregation of plaintiff’s share to such an extent as to warrant the conclusion that the property is indivisible.
2. There is nothing to show that, after segregating plaintiff’s share, defendant’s share, would be unserviceable, either for commercial of for residential purposes. It is obvious that plaintiff would not insist upon the partition prayed for, if his share were unserviceable for either – particularly the commercial – purpose.
More From oflodor
Related posts:
- Property Case Digest | Juana Pichay v. Eulalo Querol
- Property Case Digest | Roque v. Intermediate Appellate Court
- Property Case Digest | Reyes de Leon v. Del Rosario
- Property Case Digest | Bravo-Guerrero v. Bravo
- Property Case Digest | Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Vda. De Castro v. Atienza
- Property Case Digest | Saenz v. Hermanos
- Property Case Digest | Vicente Reyes v. Jose Grey
- Property Case Digest | Purugganan v. Paredes
- Property Case Digest | Pangan v. Court of Appeals
