And on and on ............ 
5.2 of the fee.
A first design is one that argues that the subject of co-ownership is commonplace.
The right of each owner is limited by the coexistence of the rights of others, reciprocal and necessarily so, it imposed by the very necessity of his essence.
A second view holds that the purpose of the fee ownership.
here is part of the idea that ownership is based on an abstract concept, which is the quota. Each of the co-owners is on property owned common share.
Many authors are opposed to this view, as objects Ferrara, pointing out that the notion of quotas in response to a notion as it connotes a fraction, which can not be the subject of a right. The purpose of the law, or at least should be according to the author, is the whole thing and that is clear in all cases where the thing must remain necessarily indivisible. In this regard one might ask what happens to the ownership of a community over its quota, on which it is solely and exclusively, while, on the commons that exist such as in a condominium, the owner is commoner in fee .
We also find the design that distinguishes between practical and ideal quota share, which maintains that there should be no difficulty if we accept that each owner exercises control over an ideal or abstract fee by the percentage that is, half or other portion ideal than the total, here each of the owners exercised their right to enjoy and dispose of the whole thing as it does within the limits that will compete for their share, or put another way, the fee is standard for measurement, while the object of property is the thing in its entirety.
Other authors such as De Ruiggero and Maroi also contribute to the discussion and argue that the traditional theory conceived as a fee subject intellectual ideal, and this would not be truly an individual part of the thing, that as the duration of the community, not takes place the identification of the parties, no settlement as such the object of ownership is therefore a purely conceptual part individualized and specific when it comes to division.
Meanwhile, Ripert Planiol and do not depart from the classical theory that the ownership is a form of private property that distinguishes between the share of a property owner when fully exercised, and the thing itself, considered materially, for which each one of the community can only act with the consent of others.
Butera, brings about the ideal fee, explaining that it is the potential of a common thing, that becomes real with the division. Be specific regarding the condo while it has ceased to exist. 6 .- Convergence
rights and limited rights to the property.
overtook that, unlike what happens in the case of society, the community is not a legal person, it lacks its own assets, common property belonging to the villagers undivided.
not forget that the right of the community over co-ownership or common property must be of the same nature.
community converge in two circumstances, the community member for their share, on which enjoy certain benefits and limit imports the same legal status from the rest of the commoners against the common thing, a situation which involves dealing with problem commoners in relations within the sphere of common thing and its consequences third or exceed its own circumstances. It is, in short, a property right, but with the limitation of the right of the same nature from the rest of the commoners.
As for the right of the villagers in the community, according to Article 2305 Civil Code, we see that the right of each community over the common thing is the same as that of the social partners have, although not It wants the legislature indicate that the community as to its legal nature, be assimilated into society, but that the powers of the villagers will be the same as those enjoyed by partners in the use, enjoyment and management of common property.
Article 2081, shows us the Right to object to acts of administration of the other community members, which states that although most of the villagers agree to perform a particular act, the opposition of one of the community impedes the realization of such an act. The opposition must be made before implementing the act or before it has produced legal effects, it is the ius prohibendi.
The second paragraph of the article cited, establishes the right of each community member to serve for the personal use of the common things, provided that the ordinary use by purpose and without prejudice to the community and the fair use of the other participants. From here you can discard the following limitations on the exercise of this right Usage:
• The thing to be used as regular destination.
• The right to use a villager, is limited by the rights of other stakeholders.
• The application can not be detrimental to the community. For its part, any of the villagers have the right to seek the end of the free enjoy a villager has in common property, unless such enjoyment has a special title for a foundation.
The third paragraph of the article establishes the right to comment on any of the villagers to force others to do also the expenses necessary for the preservation of the thing undivided. This is justified because the improvements needed, that is, for the conservation of the thing, benefit all community members. Be financed together, therefore, the law aims to prevent this rule must make diligent commoner by itself the necessary expenses and then have to be repeated against other community members. The rule does not extend itself to no less useful improvements to voluptuarias.
The number 4 of article 2081 for its part, establishes the right to object to innovations for the common good plan to carry out the other community, this standard on the company only refers to innovations that are intended to do about property however nothing said about the furniture, however, believe that the commoner could be protected under the other authority thereof, particularly a1 st and 2 nd.
As for the administration of the community is governed by the civil procedure code, and this provides that corresponds to the ordinary courts appoint an administrator undivided until the trial has been set partition or when the referee missing splitter or if the trial is made and do not miss the arbitrator shall be the final designation.
For this purpose, summon the parties concerned to a subpoena. By unanimous agreement or by an absolute majority of those present representing at least half of the rights in the community, or by order of the court, may be adopted some or all of the following measures:
• The appointment of one or more administrators, community members or others are strangers
• the fixing of their remuneration and their powers and duties;
• The determination of the rotation to be given to goods common and the spending limit can be done in the administration;
• The time when the manager is accountable to stakeholders.
Regarding the contribution of community members to share the burdens and benefits, the code provides in Article 2309 and 2,310 to be is in proportion to the share of each of them. If the villagers have not explained the scope of each fee, reputed to be the same. This code solution is adopted in similar cases, such as in the articles section 3 º 1,098, 2,367 item 1 (on bail). As for the debts, Article 2306 reiterates the idea that it responds in proportion to the shares.
contrast to the situation of debts incurred by a commoner, not being a legal community, the residents do not represent the community or represent another. Consequently, the debts incurred by a villager in the interest of the community weigh only about the commoner had them. Only he is liable to the creditor, without prejudice to their action the other villagers for a refund of the amount paid (art. 2307, item 1). We distinguish here between the debt obligation (which weighs about the villager who got it) and the contribution to the debt (which weighs upon all community members).
other hand, is the status of debts owed by the community collectively. This is referred to in Article 2307 paragraph 2, of the civil code. Against the creditor, the residents respond in the manner stipulated or jointly if expressly agreed, or last, in the absence of stipulations, in equal parts, ie the debt obligation.
above is without prejudice to the right of each one of the community against the other participants, so that you pay what you have overpaid on the share allotted to him is, contribution to the debt.
Regarding the responsibility of the villagers, according to the code in section 2308, we must understand that community members be liable for ordinary negligence for any damages caused to property and common business. Also, each community because the community what it takes, including the current interest of the common money you have spent on their private businesses. The share of the commoner
insolvent duty on others, and provided in Article 2311, are similar provision regarding the society in Article 2095, with significant difference, namely that the standard of 2311 only refers to relations between the villagers themselves, that is, the benefits will be reciprocal.
In relation to the commoner's right to dispose of its share, as provided in articles 1,812 and 1,320, the transfer may be effected without the consent of the other villagers. Exceptionally, under Article 688, requires a property disposition inherited together.
Moreover, creditors may pursue the debtor commoner fee to its share in the undivided thing.
7.-Birth and origin of the community.
The undivided, as mentioned, can be caused by an event, a contract and a legal text.
The most frequently gives rise to a community is the death of the deceased, which causes hereditary community when two or more heirs.
The undivided stems from a contract if two or more people acquire a common thing for any domain involving transfer title followed by the tradition or the sole owner of property disposes of his domain fee or other transferring it to another person.
undivided Among the cases whose source text of the Act may be cited that of the assets subject to common use in buildings where ownership is divided by floors or departments.
Another case of what are standard in the field of family law situation that occurs at the end of the conjugal partnership or to the invalidity of the putative marriage.
8 .- Duration and term of community causes.
community as to its duration may be temporary or perpetual, as we pointed out that the legislature does not look kindly on the community, whatever their denomination, as it not only causes conflicts between their members, but also undermines the free disposal of assets. That is why, precisely, that the legislature has set the partition or undivided action to end the undivided state, an action that is undeniable, inalienable and absolute.
The temporary communities, which generally are indeterminate in time, may have limited duration under the so-called "pact of undivided", which, by the community legal adversity, is subject to limitations. (Article 1317 Civil Code). Under this agreement the parties agree not to seek the division of the common thing for a specified period, that period can not exceed 5 years, renewable after expiry. If there is no covenant of undivided, under the same article, those interested can call the partition at any time. This provision is an expression of our legislature to reject the ways of undivided.
perpetual communities are established by law, but in general derive from the nature of the thing, such as happens with the common properties of a condo, as long as the property subject to property held in undivided horizontal things that the common law states.
, however, is Article 2312 of the Civil Code where they appear the grounds for termination of the community, even when there are other reasons that also analyze, for the collection of fees for all the villagers in one person, for the destruction the common thing, for the division of the common good for the prescription.
The latter cause of extinction of important community discussion on the doctrine, because it is said that the requirement as a way of acquiring ownership, ending the community, but the question arises whether it is possible for a commoner to acquire for himself the right thing common after having owned exclusively with the requirements to earn it by prescription, it is ordinary or extraordinary, as no one disputed that a third party can win by adverse possession rule of an alien thing. Our authors
not achieve consensus on the issue, then there are different positions. For those operating
prescription, argues that this would occur when one of the community, dissociated from the community, begins to possess with the intention of Mr. and exclusive owner a common good, saying that spirit with unequivocal and concrete facts, without the other parties to rein in the situation through appropriate actions, as might happen with action partition, for example.
Critics say this approach would suffer from lack of clarity, because it does not indicate the time when he split prescribiente commoner and begins to possess its own name. But supporters of the prescription between villagers defend themselves, noting that the time of separation from the commoner prescribiente manifests itself in the first unequivocal and concrete evidences the desire to own their own name versus the rest, which is added, it is necessary that the villagers do not object in time due to the act of prescribiente. Those who refute this thesis
positivist based on the history of the law, in effect, the draft Civil Code, there was a rule that allowed adverse possession between communities, which later was removed, demonstrating that the legislative intent was to prevent prescribing among heirs.
Proponents of this view will come under the purview of Article 1489 of the Civil Code unprecedented project, which provided: "There will be entitled to request partition even if one or more of the co-assigns as sole owners have enjoyed, any portion of the property comprised in the allotment, but were acquired by prescription the exclusive domain of the party. But among those who will always have undivided right to demand partition, this demonstrates the legislature's intention that the villagers enjoyed as owners, to earn the undivided thing by prescription. Article 1317 Civil Code, which contains the partition action considered to have co-ownership and community members who always have the right to seek partition, the community members that have as sole owners, are free of this rule, may acquire by prescription the undivided thing without consummating it, they could direct the action of partition.
Moreover, the contrary view that a commoner can acquire by prescription the domain of the commonplace, is based on the adverse possession requires exclusive possession, and the commoners is not so, since each has in his own name and in the other community members, moreover, that Article 1317 Civil Code states that there will always be right to seek partition, rejecting outright any requirement possible.
also add that, having eliminated the provision allowing prescribing between community, reinforces the fact that the legislature rejected this institution.
Our case law generally does not accept the adverse possession between communities, except for cases where one can wield some degree of exclusive possession. Attending this course, admitted, in opposition to the partition action, except for ordinary or extraordinary acquisitive prescription, according to swell conditions either.
In conclusion, the grounds of legal or contractual term will be, those already identified and these will operate when the partition is by mutual agreement among the community or be merged as the shares in one community member as might happen in the sale of the remainder only one of their quotas or percentages.
HAS NOT APPEARED THE WINNER OF THIS SWEEPSTAKES. 
