What if co-owner allows another to build a house on co-owned property?

A co-owner cannot give valid consent to another to build a house on the co-owned property, which is an act tantamount to devoting the property to his or her exclusive use. (Cruz vs. Catapang, G.R. No. 164110, February 12, 2008)

As to the issue of whether or not the consent of one co-owner will warrant the dismissal of a forcible entry case filed by another co-owner against the person who was given the consent to construct a house on the co-owned property, it has been held that a co-owner cannot devote common property to his or her exclusive use to the prejudice of the co-ownership. In the Supreme Court's view, a co-owner cannot give valid consent to another to build a house on the co-owned property, which is an act tantamount to devoting the property to his or her exclusive use. (De Guia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120864, October 8, 2003)

Furthermore, Articles 486 and 491 of the Civil Code provide:

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.

Art. 491. None of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in common, even though benefits for all would result therefrom. However, if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief.

Article 486 states 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. Giving consent to a third person to construct a house on the co-owned property will injure the interest of the co-ownership and prevent other co-owners from using the property in accordance with their rights. (Gala v. Rodriguez, 70 Phil. 124, 1940)

Under Article 491, none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in common. It necessarily follows that none of the co-owners can, without the consent of the other co-owners, validly consent to the making of an alteration by another person, such as respondent, in the thing owned in common. Alterations include any act of strict dominion or ownership and any encumbrance or disposition has been held implicitly to be an act of alteration. (G.R. No. 164110, February 12, 2008)

The construction of a house on the co-owned property is an act of dominion. Therefore, it is an alteration falling under Article 491 of the Civil Code. There being no consent from all co-owners, respondent had no right to construct her house on the co-owned property. (G.R. No. 164110, February 12, 2008)

Consent of only one co-owner will not warrant the dismissal of the complaint for forcible entry filed against the builder. The consent given by one (consenting) co-owner in the absence of the consent of other (non-consenting) co-owners did not vest upon the third person being ejected (to whom consent to build/enter was given) any right to enter into the co-owned property. Her entry into the property still falls under the classification "through strategy or stealth." (G.R. No. 164110, February 12, 2008)