This is an appeal by bill of exception, from  the judgment pf October 5, 1907, whereby the Honorable Dionisio Chanco, judge, absolved the defendants from the complaint,  and the plaintiff from a counterclaim, without special finding as to costs.

Counsel for  the spouses  Ricardo  Pardell  y  Cruz  and Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell, the first of whom, absent in Spain by reason of his employment, conferred upon the second sufficient and ample powers to appear before the courts of justice, on June 8, 1905, in his written com alleged that the  plaintiff, Vicenta Ortiz, and the defendant, Matilde O are  the duly recognized natural  daughters of the spouses Miguel Ortiz Calixta Felin y Paula who died in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, in 1875 and 1882, respectively; that Calixta Felin, prior to  her  death, executed, on Aug 1876,  a  nuncupative will  in Vigan whereby she made her four children, named Manuel,  Francisca,  Vicenta,  and Matilde, surnamed  Ortiz y Felix her sole and universal heirs of all her property; that, of the persons enumerated, Manuel died before his mother and Francisca a few years after her death, leaving no heirs by force of law, and therefore the only existing heirs of the said testatrix  are the plaintiff Vicenta Ortiz and the def Matilde Ortiz; that, aside from some personal property and jewelry already divided among the heirs,  the testatrix possessed,  at  the time  of the execution of her will, and left at her death the real properties which, their respective cash values, are as follows:

1. A house of strong material, with the  lot  on which it is built, situate  Escolta Street, Vigan,  and valued at.................................	P6,000.00
2. A house  of mixed  material,  with the lot on which it stands, at No.  88 Washington Street  Vigan;, valued at  ..........................	1,500.00
3. A lot on Magallanes Street,  Vigan; valued at.............................	100.00
4. A parcel of rice land, situated in the barrio of San Julian, Vigan; valued at.........................................	60.00
5. A parcel of rice land  in the pueblo of Santa Lucia; valued at......................................................	86.00
6. Three parcels of land in the pueblo of Candon; valued at..............	150
Total	7,896.00

That, on or about the first months of the year 1888,  the defendants, wit judicial authorization,  nor friendly or extrajudicial agreement, too themselves the administration and enjoyment of the said properties and collected the rents, fruits, and products thereof, to the serious detriment plaintiffs'  interests; that, notwithstanding the different and  repeated demands extra-judicially made upon Matilde  Ortiz to divide the aforementioned properties with the plaintiff Vicenta and to deliver to the latter the one- half of  the same which rightly  belonged to her,  or the value thereof, together with one-half of the fruits and rents collected therefrom, the said defendant and  her husband, the self-styled administrator of the properties mentioned, had  been delaying the partition and  deliver of the said properties by  means of unkept promises and other excuses; an that the  plaintiffs, on account  of the extraordinary delay  in the  delivery of one-half of  said properties,  or their value in  cash, as the case mi had suffered losses and damages in the sum of P8,000.  Said counsel for the plaintiffs  therefore asked that judgment be rendered by sentencing t defendants, Gaspar de Bartolome and Matilde Ortiz Felin de Bartolome, to restore and deliver to the plaintiffs  one-half of the total value in cash according to appraisal,  of the undivided property  specified,  which one amounted approximately to P3,948, or, if deemed proper, .to recognize  the plaintiff Vicenta Ortiz to be vested with the full  and absolute  right o ownership to the said undivided one-half of the  properties  in question, universal testamentary  heir thereof together with the defendant Matilde to indemnify the  plaintiffs in the sum of P8,000, for losses and damages and to pay the costs.

Counsel  for the defendants, in his answer denied the facts alleged in paragraphs 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 thereof, inasmuch as, upon the death of the litigating sisters' brother Manuel, their  mother, who was still living, by force of  law, and the defendants had never refused to give to the plaintiff  Vicenta Ortiz her share of the said properties; and stated that admitted  the  facts alleged  in paragraph 2,  provided it be understood, however, that the surname of the defendant's  mother  was Felin, and  not Feliti,  and that Miguel  Ortiz  died  in  Spain,  and not in Vigan; that admitted paragraph 3 of the complaint, with the difference that the said surname should be Felin, and likewise paragraph 5, except the part thereof  relating to the  personal property and the jewelry, since the latter had been divided; that  the said  jewelry was in the possession  of the plain and consisted of:  one  Lozada gold chronometer  watch with  a chain  in the form of a bridle curb and a watch charm  consisting of the engraving a postage stamp on a stone mounted in gold and bearing the initials M. 0. a pair of  cuff buttons made of gold coins, four small gold buttons, two finger rings, another with the inatials M. O., and a  gold bracelet; and the defendants were willing to deliver to the plaintiffs,  in conformity petition, one-half of the total value in cash, according to appraisement, the undivided real properties specified in paragraph 5,  which  half amount to P3,948.

In a special  defense  said counsel alleged that the defendants had never refused to divide the said property and had in  fact several years before solicited the partition of the same; that, from 1886 to 1901, inclusive, collected from the property on Calle Escolta the sum  of 288 pesos,  besi a few other  small amounts derived. from other sources, which were deliver to  the plaintiffs  with other larger amounts, in 1891,  and from  the pr on Calle Washington, called La Quinta, 990.95 pesos, which proceeds, added together, made a total of 1,278.95 pesos, saving error or omission; that, between the years abovementioned, 765.38  pesos were spent on the house  situated on Calle Escolta, and on that on Calle Washington, La Qui 376.33, which made a total  of 1,141.71, saving error or omission; that, the work of reconstruction was  begun of the house on  Calle Escolta,  which had been destroyed  by an earthquake, which work was not finished until 1903 and required an expenditure on the  part of the defendant Ma- tilde Ortiz, of 5,091.52 pesos; that all the collections made up to August 1, 1 including the rent from  the stores, amounted to only P3,654.15, and the expenses, to P6,252.32, there being, consequently, a balance of P2,598.17 divided between the sisters, the plaintiff and the defendant, would make letter's share P1,299.08; that, as shown by the papers  kept by  the  pla in  the year 1891 the defendant Bartolome  presented to the plaintiffs a statement in settlement of accounts, and delivered to the  person duly authorized  by the latter for the purpose,  the sum of P2,606.29, which t said settlement showed was owing his principals, from various sources; th the defendant Bartolome  having been  the administrator of the  undivided property claimed by  the  plaintiffs, the latter were owing the former th remuneration of the percentage allowed by law for  administration; and th the defendants  were willing to pay the sum of P3,948, one-half of the to value of  the  said properties,  deducting  therefrom the amount found to be owing them  by the plaintiffs, and asked that judgment be  rendered in their favor  to enable them to recover from the. latter  that  amount, together with the costs  and expenses  of the suit.

The defendants, in  their counterclaim, repeated each and all  of the allegations  contained in each of the paragraphs of  section   10 of their answer; that the plaintiffs  were obliged to pay to the administrator  of said property the remuneration allowed him by law; that, as the revenues collected by the defendants amounted  to no  more  than P3,654.15,   and the  expenditures  incurred  by  them, to P6,252.32, it followed that the plaintiffs owed  the defendants Pl,299.08, that is, one-half of the different between the amount collected from and that expended on the  properties, and  asked that judgment be therefore rendered in their  behalf to enable them to  collect  this sum from the plaintiffs, Ricardo  Pardell and Vice Ortiz,  with  legal interest thereon from December 7, 1904, the date when accounts were rendered, together with  the sums to which the defendant Bartolome was entitled for the administration of the undivided properties question.

By a written motion of August 21, 1905, counsel for the plaintiffs request permission to amend the complaint by inserting immediately after the  wor "or respective  appraisal," fifth line of paragraph  5, the phrase "in ca accordance with the assessed value," and likewise further to amend the sa in paragraph 6 thereof, by substituting the following  words in lieu of t petition for the remedy sought:  "By reason of all the foregoing, I beg t court to be  pleased to render judgment by sentencing the  defendants, Gaspar de Bartolome and Matilde Ortiz Felin de Bartolome, to restore and deliver to the plaintiffs an  exact one-half of the total value of  the undivided  properties described in the complaint, such value to be ascertained by the expert appraisal of two competent persons, one of whom shall be appointed by the  plaintiffs and  the other by  the defendants, and, in c of disagreement between these two appointees such value shall be determine by a third expert appraiser appointed by the court, or, in a proper case, the price offered at public auction; or, in lieu  thereof, it is requested court recognize the  plaintiff, Vicenta Ortiz,  to  be vested with  a ful absolute right to  an undivided one-half of the said properties; furthermore is prayed that the plaintiffs be awarded an indemnity of P8,000 for losses and damages, and the costs."   Notwithstanding the opposition of the defendants, the said amendment was admitted by the court and counsel for the defendants were allowed a period of three days within which to present a new answer.  An exception was taken to this ruling.

The  proper  proceedings were had with reference to  the valuation of the properties concerned in the division sought and incidental issues  were r relative to the partition Of some of them and their award to one or the other of  the parties.  Due consideration was taken of the averments and statements of both parties who agreed between themselves, before the court that any of them might at any time acquire, at the valuation fixed  by the expert judicial appraiser, any of the properties in question, there being existence excluded  by the litigants.  The court, therefore, by o December 28,1905, ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to acquire,  at valuation determined by the said expert appraiser, the building known as Quinta, the lot on which it stands and the warehouses and other improvements comprised within the inclosed land, and the seed lands sit in the  pueblos  of Vigan and  Santa  Lucia; and that  the defendants were likewise entitled to acquire the house  on Calle Escolta, the lot on Magallanes, and the three parcels of land situated in the pueblo of Cando

After this partition had been made, counsel for the defendants, by a writ of March 8, 1906,  set forth: That, having petitioned for the appraisement the properties in question for the purpose of their partition, it was not understood that he desisted from the exception duly entered to the ruling made in the matter of the amendment to  the complaint; that the properties retained by the defendants were valued at P9,310, and those retained by t plaintiffs, at P2,885, one-half  of which amounts each party had  to deli to the other, as they were pro indiviso properties; that, therefor defendants had to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P3,212.50, after deducting the amount which  the plaintiffs were obliged to deliver to the defendant one- half of the price of the properties retained by the former; that, notwithstanding that the  amount of the counterclaim for the expenses incurred in the  reconstruction of the pro indiviso property should deducted from the sum which the defendants  had  to pay  the plaintiffs, the  former, for the purpose of  bringing the matter  of the partition to close, would deliver to the latter, immediately  upon the signing of the instrument of purchase and  sale, the sum  of P3,212.50, which was  one-h the value of the properties alloted to  the defendants; such delivery, ho was not to be understood as a renouncement of the said counter-claim, but only as a  means for the final termination  of the pro indiviso is the property.

The case having  been  heard, the  court, on October  5, 1907, rendered judgment holding that the revenues and the expenses were compensated by the residence enjoyed by the defendant party, that no  losses or damages were either caused or suffered, nor likewise any other expense besides the aforementioned, and absolved the defendants from the complaint and the plaintiffs from the counterclaim, with no special finding as to costs.  A exception was taken to this judgment  by counsel for  the defendants who moved for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence presented did not warrant the judgment rendered and that the latter was contrary to law.  T motion  was denied, exception whereto was taken by said counsel, who file the proper bill of exceptions,  and the same was  approved  and forwarded to the clerk of this court, with a transcript of the evidence.

Both of the litigating sisters assented to a partition by halves of  the property left in her will by their mother at her death; in fact,  during course of this suit, proceedings were had, in accordance with the agreements made, for the division between them  of the said  hereditary property of common ownership, which  division  was recognized  and approved in the findings of the trial court, as shown by the judgment  appealed  from.

The issues  raised by the parties, aside from said division made during t and which have been submitted to this court  for decision, concern:  (1) indemnity claimed for losses  and damages, which the plaintiffs allege am to P8,000, in  addition to the rents which should have been derived from house on Calle Escolta, Vigan;  (2)  the payment by the plaintiffs to the defendants of the sum of Pl,299.08, demanded by way of counterclaim, together with legal  interest thereon from  December 7,  1904;  (3)  the payment to the husband of the defendant Matilde  Ortiz, of a percentage claimed  to be  due him as the administrator of the property of common ownership; (4) the division of certain jewelry  in the possession of the Vicenta Ortiz; and (5)  the petition that the amendment be held to have been improperly admitted, which was  made by  the plaintiffs in their wri motion of August 21,1905, against the opposition of the defendants, through which admission the latter were obliged to pay the former P910.50.

Before entering upon an explanation of the propriety or impropriety of the claims made by both parties, it is indispensable to state that the trial in absolving the defendants from the complaint, held that they had not caused losses and damages to  the plaintiffs, and that the revenues and expenses were compensated, in  view of the fact that the defendants  had been living  for several years in the Calle Escolta house, which was  indiviso property of joint ownership.

By this finding absolving the defendants from the complaint, and which wa acquiesced in by the plaintiffs  who made no appeal  therefrom, the final issue has been  decided which was raised by the plaintiffs, concerning indemnity for losses and damages, wherein are  comprised the rents which should have been obtained from the upper  story of the said house during the time it was occupied by the defendants, Matilde Ortiz and her husband Gaspar de Bartolome.

Notwithstanding the acquiescence on the part of the plaintiffs, assenting the said finding whereby  the defendants were absolved from the complaint yet,  as such absolution is based on  the compensation established in the judgment of the trial  court,  between  the  amounts which each party is entitled to claim from the other, it is imperative to determine whether t defendant Matilde Ortiz, as coowner of the house on Calle Escolta, was entitled, with her husband, to reside therein, without paying  to her coo Vicenta Ortiz, who,  during the greater part of the time, lived with her husband abroad, one-half of  the rents which the upper story would have produced, had it been rented to a stranger.

Article 394 of the  Civil Code prescribes:

"Each co-owner may use the things owned in  common, provided he uses them in  accordance with their object  and in such manner  as not to injure  t interests of the community  nor prevent  the co-owners from utilizing  the according to their rights."

Matilde Ortiz and her husband occupied the upper story, designed for use a dwelling, in the house of joint ownership ; but the record shows no pro that, by so doing, the said Matilde occasioned any  detriment  to the int of the community property, nor that she prevented her sister Vicenta from utilizing the said upper story according to her rights.   It is to be not the stores of the lower floor were rented and an accounting of the rents duly made to the plaintiffs.

Each  co-owner of realty held  pro indiviso  exercises his rights o whole property  and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than that  he  shall not injure the interests of his co-owners, for  the that, until a division be made, the respective part of each holder can no determined and every one of  the co-owners exercises, together with his ot co-participants, joint  ownership over the pro indiviso property, i to his use and enjoyment of the same.

As the hereditary properties of the joint ownership of the two sisters, V Ortiz, plaintiff, and Matilde Ortiz, defendant, were situated in the Prov Ilocos Sur, and were in the care of the last named, assisted by her husbant while the plaintiff Vicenta with her husband  was residing outside  of the province the greater part  of  the time between  1885 and 1905,  when  sh left  these Islands  for Spain, it  is not at all strange that delays and difficulties should have attended the efforts made to collect the rents a proceeds from the property  held in common and  to obtain  a partition  o the  latter, especially during several years when, owing to the insurrection country was in a turmoil; and for this reason,  aside from that founded o the right  of co-ownership of the defendants, who took upon themselves the administration and  care  of the properties of joint tenancy for purposes their  preservation and improvement,  these latter are  not obliged to pa the plaintiff  Vicenta one-half of the rents which  might have b derived from the upper story of the said house on Calle Escolta and, much less because one of the living rooms and the storeroom thereof were used for the storage of some belongings  and effects of common ownership between the litigants.   The defendant Matilde, therefore, in occupying w husband the upper floor of the said house, did not injure the interests o coowner, her sister Vicenta, nor did she prevent  the latter  from living but merely exercised a legitimate right pertaining  to her as a coowner o property.

Notwithstanding the  above statements relative  to the joint-ownership  r which entitled the defendants to live in the upper story of the said hous in view of the fact that the record  shows it to have been proved that th defendant Matilde's husband,  Gaspar de Bartolome, occupied for four year a room or a part of the lower floor of the same house on Calle Escolta, using it as an office for the justice of the peace,  a position which he the capital of that province, strict justice requires that he pay his sis the plaintiff,  one-half of the monthly rent which the said quarters could produced, had they been leased to another person.  The amount of such monthly rental is fixed at P16 in accordance with the evidence shown in t record. This conclusion as to Bartolome's liability results from the fact as the husband of the defendant coowner of the property, he had  no right to occupy and use gratuitously the said part of the lower  floor of the house in question, where he lived with his wife, to the detriment of the Vicenta who did not receive one-half of the rent  which those quarters co and should have produced, had they been occupied by a stranger, in the same manner that rent was obtained from the rooms on the lower floor that were used as stores.  Therefore,  the defendant Bartolome must pay t the plaintiff Vicenta P384, that is, one-half of P768, the total amount o the  rents which should have been obtained during four years from the quarters occupied as an office by the justice  of the peace of Vigan.

With respect to the second question submitted for decision to this court, relative to the payment of the sum demanded as a counterclaim, it was admitted and proved in the present case that, as a result of a serious earthquake on August 15, 1897, the said house on Calle Escolta was left i and uninhabitable, and that, for its reconstruction or repair, the defend had  to expend the sum of P6,252.32.  This expenditure, notwithstanding t it was impugned, during the trial, by  the plaintiffs,  was duly proved,b evidence presented by the defendants.   Evidence, unsuccessfully rebutted also introduced which proved that the rents produced by all the rural  an urban  properties of common ownership amounted, up to August 1, 1905, to the,sum of P3,654,15 which, being applied toward the cost of the repair w on the said house, leaves a balance of P2,598.17, the amount actually advanced by the defendants,  for the rents collected by them were not sufficient for the termination of all  the work undertaken on  the said building, necessary for its complete  repair and to replace it in a habit condition.   It is therefore lawful and just that the plaintiff Vicenta O was willing to sell to her sister Matilde for Pl,500, her share in the ho question, when it was in a ruinous state,  should  pay the defendants  on half of the amount expended in the said repair work, since the building a reconstruction  was worth P9,000,  according to expert appraisal. Consequently, the counterclaim made by the defendants for the payment to them of the sum of P1,299.08, is a proper demand, though from this sum a reduction must be made of P384, the amount of one half of the rents which should have been collected for the use of the quarters occupied by the justice of the peace, the payment of which is incumbent upon the  husband of the defendant Matilde, as aforesaid, and the balance remaining, P915.0 the amount which the plaintiff Vicenta must pay to the defendants.

The defendants claim  to  be entitled to the  collection of legal interest the  amount of the counterclaim,, from December 7, 1904.   This contention can not be sustained, in asmuch as, until this suit is finally decided, not be known whether the plaintiffs would or would not be obliged to pay any sum whatever in reimbursement of expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in the repair  work on the  said house on Calle Escolta, whether not the defendants, in turn, were entitled to collect any such amount, an finally, what the net sum would be which the plaintiffs might have to pay reimbursement for one-half of the expenditure made by the defendants.  Until final disposal of the case, no such net sum can be determined, nor until can the debtor be deemed to be in arrears.  In order that there be an obligation to pay legal interest in connection  with  a matter at issue b the parties, it must be declared in a judicial decision from what date the interest will be due on the principal concerned  in the suit.  This  rule established by the decisions of the supreme court of Spain, in reference articles 1108,  1109, and  1110 of the Civil Code, rendered on April  24, November 19, 1869, and February 22, 1901.

With regard to the percentage, as remuneration claimed by the husband  of the defendant Matilde for his administration of the property of common ownership, inasmuch as no stipulation whatever  was  made in the matter b and between him and his sister-in-law, the said defendant, the claimant i entitled to the payment of any remuneration whatsoever.  Of his own accordance and as an officious manager, he administered the said pro indiviso proper one-half, of which belonged to his wife who held it in joint tenancy, wit sister-in-law, and the law does not allow him any compensation  as such voluntary administrator.   He is merely entitled to  a reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures as he may have made on the undivided properties and an indemnity for the damages he may have  suffered while acting in that capacity, since at all events  it was  his duty to care for preserve the said property, half  of which belonged to his wife; and in exchange for the trouble and labor occasioned him by the  administration his sister-in-law's half of the said property, he with his wife resided upper story of the house aforementioned, without payment of one-half of the rents said quarters might have produced had they been leased to another person.

With  respect to the division of certain jewelry, petitioned for by the defendants and appellants only in their brief in this appeal, the record proceedings in the lower court does  not show that  the allegation made b the  plaintiff Vicenta is not true, to the effect that the deceased mother the litigant sisters disposed of this jewelry during her lifetime,  becau not done  so, the will made  by the said deceased would have been exhibited in which them said jewelry  would have been mentioned, at  leas would have been proved that the  articles in question came into the possession of the plaintiff Vicenta without the expressed desire and the consent of the  deceased mother of the said sisters, for the gift of  thi jewelry was previously assailed  in the courts, without success;  therefor in view of  its inconsiderable value, there is no  reason for holding  th said gift was not made.

As regards the collection of  the sum of P910.50,  which is the difference between the assessed value of the undivided real properties and the price the same as determined by the judicial expert appraiser, it is shown by t record  that the ruling of  the trial judge admitting the amendment to the original complaint,  is in accord  with the law and principles of justice reason that any of the coowners of a pro indiviso  property, subject to division or sale, is entitled to petition for its valuation by competent appraisers. Such valuation is not prejudicial to any of the joint owners, beneficial to their interests,  considering  that, as a general rule, the value  of a building or a parcel of realty  is less than the actual real of the property,  and this being understood by the defendants, they appointed an expert appraiser to determine,  in conjunction with the  one selected by the plaintiffs, the value of the properties of joint ownershi These two  experts  took part in the later proceedings of  the  suit unti finally, and during the course of  the latter, the litigating parties agr amicable division of the pro indiviso hereditary property, in accordance the price  fixed by the  judicial expert  appraiser appointed as a third in  view of the disagreement between and nonconformity of the appraisers chosen by the litigants.  Therefore it is improper now to claim a right t collection  of the  said  sum, the difference between the assessed value that  fixed by  the  judicial  expert appraiser, for the reason that the increase in price, as determined by this latter appraisal, redounded to t benefit of both parties.

In  consideration of the foregoing,  whereby the  errors assigned to the court have been duly refuted, it is our opinion that, with a partial reversal the judgment appealed from, in so far as it absolves the plaintiffs from counterclaim presented by the defendants,  we should  and hereby do sentence the plaintiffs to the payment of the sum of P915.00,  the balance of the sum claimed by the defendants as a balance of the one-half of the amount which the defendants advanced for the reconstruction or repair of the Calle Escolta house, after deducting from the total of such sum claim by the latter the amount of P384 which Gaspar de Bartolome,  the husband of the defendant Matilde, should have paid as one-half of the rents due f his occupation of the quarters on the lower floor of the said house as an office for the justice of the peace court of Vigan; and we further find; That the defendants are not  obliged to pay one-half of the rents  which could  have been obtained from the upper story of the said house; (2) tha the plaintiffs can not be compelled to pay legal interest from December 7 1904, on the  sum expended in the reconstruction  of the aforementioned house, but only the interest fixed by law, at the rate  of  6  per cent per annum, from the  date  of the judgment to be rendered in accordance with this decision; (3) that the husband of the defendant Matilde  Ortiz is no entitled to any remuneration for the administration of the pro indiviso property belonging to both parties;  (4) that, neither is he entitled to collect f plaintiffs the sum of P910.50, the difference between the assessed valuation and the price set by the  expert appraisal solicited  by the plaintiffs amendment  to the complaint; and,  (5) that  no partition shall be made certain jewelry aforementioned now in the possession of the  plaintiff Vi Ortiz.   The  said  judgment,  as relates to the  points  appealed,  is affirmed, in so far  as its findings agree with those of this decision, a reversed, in so far as they do not.  No  special  finding  is made regard the costs of both instances.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and  Trent, JJ., concur.