Article 487

Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. 

The co-owner has right to bring an action in ejectment.One right of co0owner is to defend in court the interest of the co-ownership. In the old case of Palanca vs Baguisi 38 Philippine 177, it was held that to bring an action ejectment all the co-owners must institute the suit.Article 487 reverses said ruling,hence today,one co-owners may himself bring the action.It is understand of course that the action is being instituted for all.Hence,if the co-owner expressly states that he is bringing the case only to himself,the action should not be allowed to prosper.It is believed that "ejectment"heres co-owners the action.

Article 486

Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied. (394a)

Right to use property owned in common, This article grant each co-owner the right to use property for the purpose intended. But the interest of the co-ownership must not be injured on prejudiced and the other co-owner must not be prevented from using it. For example, A and B owned in common a two story house.The upper floor has used as a dwelling, the lower was available for rent by stores,if A lives in a room of the upper floor,and uses a room of the lower floor as an office,can B demand rent?No rent rent for the upper floor can be demanded for A was exercising her rights as co-owner without prejudicing B who,she wanted could have also lived in another room of said floor and who therefore could not have been prejudiced.Half rental maybedemanded for the use of lower floor.Rent could be ask because others could have rented same,but only half should be given because A was a co-owner.

Article 489

Art. 489. Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of the co-owners, but he must, if practicable, first notify his co-owners of the necessity for such repairs. Expenses to improve or embellish the thing shall be decided upon by a majority as determined in Article 492. (n)

Numbers of co-owners who must consent

a.Repairs, ejectment action

b.alteration on acts of co-ownership

c.all others like usefull improvements,luxurious embellishments administration and better enjoyment.Financial majority a co-owner can go ahead with necessary repairs even against the opposition of all the rest.Because the negligence of the others should not prejudice him.If he has money in the meantime,he can contract with the repairmen and all the co-owners will be liable proportionately to the creditors.Here they maybe renounce their shares in the co-ownership.In favor of creditors  or make the renouncing in favour of the conscientious co-owner.

Article 488

Art. 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes. Any one of the latter may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes. No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the co-ownership. (395a)

A co-owner has the right to compel the others to share in the expenses of preservation, even if, incurred without prior notification to them (since the expenses are necessary)But he must notify if practicable.A co owner must exempt himself  from this duty to reimburse by renouncing so much undivided shares as maybe equivalent to his share of expenses and taxes.The one renouncing does not necessarily renounce his entire interest in the co0ownership further that the renouncing  cannot be one if the co-ownership will be prejudiced. If the renouncing is in favor of the creditor the creditor must give his consent where a debtor  gives something else in payment of his debt.If the renouncing is in favor of the  other co-owners, a novation (in the form of substitution of debtor) would result necessitating the consent of said other co-owners and the creditor.The creditor consent would of course be needed  only if the expense have already been incurred, otherwise as yet be no creditors.

Article 495

Art. 495. 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 co-ownership may be terminated in accordance with Article 498. (401a)

The law that governs partition,first,the civil code,then suppletorily the rules of court.(rules 69 of the revised of rules of court provides for the partition.The co-owneres have the rigth to voluntarily terminate their existing co-ownership or the property thru an agreement subdividing the land among themselves,This right exists ,even if their subdivisions does not conform to the rules of the National Planning Commissions as to the area of each a lot,frontage an with of alleys.This reasons:said rules are intended to regulate the sudivision of land for sale and for building development(not for a voluntary partitioning on introduction of improvements by co-owners.Secondly even if the rules of commission would ordinarily applicable,still said rules were promulgated under example,E.O. No.98 in 1946(under the emergency power of the provision)and should therefor not prevail over the civil code  which took affect later.

.