G.R. No. L-8603; March 13, 1914
SEVERINO CORNISTA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEVERA TICSON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Severino Cornista and defendant Severa Ticson, claiming to be heirs of one Alvarez, executed an extrajudicial partition agreement. Under its terms, Ticson was to receive a house and 2/12 of the land on which it stood, while Cornista was to receive 10/12 of the land. This agreement was submitted to and approved by the Court of First Instance of Laguna in the course of proceedings for the administration of Alvarez’s estate.

Subsequently, upon motion of Cornista’s counsel, the court issued an order directing the sheriff to deliver possession of Cornista’s 10/12 share to him. The sheriff went to the property, measured off a portion he estimated to be 10/12 of the whole parcel, and attempted to deliver it to Cornista. Ticson, however, remained in possession of the house and the entire parcel. Cornista then filed this action to recover the specific portion measured off by the sheriff.

Ticson contested the sheriff’s actions as unlawful and attempted, unsuccessfully, to have them annulled and to have a judicial partition conducted under the Code of Civil Procedure. She maintained that Cornista could not maintain an action for exclusive possession of any specific part of the commonly held land.

ISSUE:
Whether a co-owner (tenant in common) can maintain an action against a co-owner to recover exclusive possession of a specific portion of the commonly held property prior to an actual partition, either by agreement or judicial proceedings.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Cornista.

The Court held that the sheriff’s act of arbitrarily selecting and measuring a specific portion of the land to deliver to Cornista was wholly without authority. Even assuming the court order directing delivery was valid, it could only authorize the delivery of Cornista’s 10/12 undivided interest in the common property, not the physical possession of a specific, segregated portion. Until a proper partition is effected, each co-owner’s right is to an undivided share over the whole property.

The proper remedy for a co-owner desiring exclusive possession of his share is an action for partition under the Civil Code. As a general rule, one co-owner cannot maintain an action against another for the exclusive possession of the common property or for the sole enjoyment of its profits. The defendant’s consent to the extrajudicial partition agreement, which merely recognized Cornista’s undivided 10/12 interest, could not be construed as consent to the sheriff’s unauthorized act of physical division.

The judgment of the lower court was reversed, without costs.