Niccolo and his girlfriend Meann were classmates in medical school. When they finished their studies and started earning, they decided to invest in a condominium unit together which they hoped to lease out. Since Niccolo came from a rich family and was still receiving an allowance from his parents, the couple decided that Niccolo would shell out 2/3 (₱10 million) of the ₱15 million purchase price, while Meann would contribute 1/3 (₱5 million). They asked a mutual friend who was a law student to draw up a contract which reflected the mentioned interests. The contract also had a provision that their shares in the benefits as well as the charges affecting the property would be equal. They then found a long-term tenant who rented the property for ₱30,000 a month. Unfortunately, Niccolo and Meann broke up and are now quarreling over their respective shares in the rental income. Niccolo insists that he should get ₱20,000 or 2/3 of the monthly income while Meann claims that it should be ₱15,000 each. Who is correct? Explain your answer.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Niccolo is correct in insisting that he should get ₱20,000 or 2/3 of the monthly rental income. Under Article 485 of the Civil Code, the share of the co-owners in the benefits as well as in the
Unlock the full Civil Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Article 485 of the Civil Code, how are benefits and charges divided among co-owners?
Article 485 of the Civil Code dictates that shares in benefits and charges must be proportional to respective co-ownership interests.
What is the legal effect under Article 485 of a contractual stipulation dividing co-ownership benefits contrary to proportional interests?
Article 485 explicitly renders void any contractual stipulation that contradicts proportional sharing of co-ownership benefits and charges.
When does the legal presumption of equal shares among co-owners apply under Article 485 of the Civil Code?
The presumption of equal co-ownership shares applies only when there is no proof regarding the actual contributions made by the parties.
Niccolo contributed 2/3 and Meann contributed 1/3 to purchase a lease property. What is the legal status of a clause in their agreement stipulating equal rental sharing?
Choices available with full access.
Why is Niccolo entitled to receive ₱20,000 of the ₱30,000 monthly rental income from the co-owned condominium?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Co Ownership Sharing
Under Article 485 of the Civil Code, the share of co-owners in the benefits as well as in the charges of the co-ownership shall be proportional to their respective financial or property interests. The law mandates that profits and expenses must be divided strictly according to the proportionate contribution of each co-owner to the co-owned property. If the co-owners contributed unequal amounts to the acquisition of the co-owned asset, their respective legal shares in all benefits, including lease income and fruits, must strictly mirror those unequal proportions.
2. Void Contrary Stipulation
Article 485 of the Civil Code explicitly declares void any contractual agreement or stipulation that provides for a division of benefits or charges contrary to the co-owners' proportional interests. Even if co-owners voluntarily sign an agreement stipulating equal division of profits despite unequal capital contributions, that contractual clause is void ab initio for violating mandatory law. Courts will disregard the illegal contract provision and enforce statutory proportional sharing based on the actual capital inputs made by the parties.
3. Co Ownership Presumption
Under Article 485 of the Civil Code, the shares of co-owners in the co-owned property are presumed equal in the absence of proof to the contrary. However, this statutory presumption of equal shares is merely rebuttable and applies only when there is no evidence regarding the actual contributions of the co-owners. When contract documents or financial records clearly prove that co-owners contributed unequal amounts toward purchasing the property, the legal presumption of equality is completely overcome, and proportional ownership applies.