Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 301 views

    Ramirez Vs Ramirez Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Olivia Khaleesi
    The document summarizes a court case regarding the partition of a parcel of land located in Manila belonging jointly to the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants objected to physically partitioning the property, arguing it was not possible and would harm the co-owners. However, the court ruled that without evidence to support this claim, physical division was proper. It was also ruled that since both parties would benefit from partitioning the property, they must share the expenses of doing so.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ramirez Vs Ramirez Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Olivia Khaleesi
    301 views1 page
    The document summarizes a court case regarding the partition of a parcel of land located in Manila belonging jointly to the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants objected to physically partitioning the property, arguing it was not possible and would harm the co-owners. However, the court ruled that without evidence to support this claim, physical division was proper. It was also ruled that since both parties would benefit from partitioning the property, they must share the expenses of doing so.

    Original Title

    Ramirez vs Ramirez case digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case regarding the partition of a parcel of land located in Manila belonging jointly to the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants objected to physically partitioning the property, arguing it was not possible and would harm the co-owners. However, the court ruled that without evidence to support this claim, physical division was proper. It was also ruled that since both parties would benefit from partitioning the property, they must share the expenses of doing so.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    301 views1 page

    Ramirez Vs Ramirez Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Olivia Khaleesi
    The document summarizes a court case regarding the partition of a parcel of land located in Manila belonging jointly to the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants objected to physically partitioning the property, arguing it was not possible and would harm the co-owners. However, the court ruled that without evidence to support this claim, physical division was proper. It was also ruled that since both parties would benefit from partitioning the property, they must share the expenses of doing so.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    [G.R. No. L-22621. September 29, 1967.

    JOSE MARIA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 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.

    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 otherwise known as Lot 1 of Block 2120
    of the Cadastral Survey of Manila and more particularly described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53946 of
    the Register of Deeds for said City and belonging pro indiviso to both parties, one sixth (1/6) to the
    plaintiff and five-sixths (5/6) to the defendants.

    All the defendants except Manuel Uy & Sons and Butte, 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."

    By agreement of the parties, the lower Court referred the matter to a Commission to determine
    whether the property is susceptible of partition. After due hearing, the 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 the Commission, and that the expenses incident thereto be paid by
    both parties proportionately. Hence, this appeal by the defendants, except Mrs. Butte.

    Issue: Whether the said property is legally susceptible of physical division

    Held: The Court ruled in the affirmative.

    According to the Court, where, as in this case, no evidence was introduced in support of the claim
    that a physical division of the property will cause inestimable damage to the interest of the co-owners
    thereof, a court order requiring its division was proper. Moreover, the same is predicated upon the
    assumption that a real estate suitable for commercial purposes such as the one herein sought to be
    partitioned is likely to suffer a proportionately great diminution in value when its area becomes too small.

    The Court also ruled that 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.

    You might also like