Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 161916. January 20, 2006.]

ARNELITO ADLAWAN , petitioner, vs . EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN and


NARCISA M. ADLAWAN , respondents.

Neri & Associates Law Firm for petitioner.


Alo & Velasquez Law Office for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PARTIES; PETITIONER HAS NO AUTHORITY TO


INSTITUTE EJECTMENT CASE AS SOLE OWNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY CO-OWNED
WITH OTHER HEIRS; CASE AT BAR. The decisive issue to be resolved is whether or not
petitioner can validly maintain the instant case for ejectment. Petitioner averred that he is
an acknowledged illegitimate son and the sole heir of Dominador. He in fact executed an
affidavit adjudicating to himself the controverted property. In ruling for the petitioner, the
RTC held that the questioned January 31, 1962 deed of sale validly transferred title to
Dominador and that petitioner is his acknowledged illegitimate son who inherited
ownership of the questioned lot. The Court notes, however, that the RTC lost sight of the
fact that the theory of succession invoked by petitioner would end up proving that he is not
the sole owner of Lot 7226. This is so because Dominador was survived not only by
petitioner but also by his legal wife, Graciana, who died 10 years after the demise of
Dominador on May 28, 1987. By intestate succession, Graciana and petitioner became co-
owners of Lot 7226. The death of Graciana on May 6, 1997, did not make petitioner the
absolute owner of Lot 7226 because the share of Graciana passed to her relatives by
consanguinity and not to petitioner with whom she had no blood relations. The Court of
Appeals thus correctly held that petitioner has no authority to institute the instant action
as the sole owner of Lot 7226.
2. CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY; CO-OWNERSHIP; THAT ANY ONE OF CO-OWNERS MAY
BRING ACTION FOR EJECTMENT; NOT PROPER WHERE SUIT FILED FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ONE CO-OWNER ALONE WHO CLAIMS SOLE OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY;
CASE AT BAR. Petitioner contends that even granting that he has co-owners over Lot
7226, he can on his own file the instant case pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code
which provides: ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. This
article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession. Article 487 includes
forcible entry and unlawful detainer (action interdictal), recovery of possession (action
publiciana), and recovery of ownership (action de reivindicacion). A co-owner may bring
such an action without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs
because the suit is presumed to have been filed to benefit his co-owners. It should be
stressed, however, that where the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to
be the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the litigated property, the action
should be dismissed. The renowned civilist, Professor Arturo M. Tolentino, explained . . .
A co-owner may bring such an action, without the necessity of joining all the other co-
owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. If
the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that he claims possession for
himself and not for the co-ownership, the action will not prosper. In the instant case, it is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
not disputed that petitioner brought the suit for unlawful detainer in his name alone and for
his own benefit to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana as he even executed an affidavit of
self-adjudication over the disputed property. It is clear therefore that petitioner cannot
validly maintain the instant action considering that he does not recognize the co-ownership
that necessarily flows from his theory of succession to the property of his father,
Dominador. In the same vein, there is no merit in petitioner's claim that he has the legal
personality to file the present unlawful detainer suit because the ejectment of respondents
would benefit not only him but also his alleged co-owners. However, petitioner forgets that
he filed the instant case to acquire possession of the property and to recover damages. If
granted, he alone will gain possession of the lot and benefit from the proceeds of the
award of damages to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana. Hence, petitioner cannot
successfully capitalize on the alleged benefit to his co-owners. Incidentally, it should be
pointed out that in default of the said heirs of Graciana, whom petitioner labeled as
"fictitious heirs," the State will inherit her share and will thus be petitioner's co-owner
entitled to possession and enjoyment of the property.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

Assailed in this petition for review is the September 23, 2003 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74921 which set aside the September 13, 2002 Decision 2 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. CEB-27806, and
reinstated the February 12, 2002 Judgment 3 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Minglanilla, Metro Cebu, in Civil Case No. 392, dismissing petitioner Arnelito Adlawan's
unlawful detainer suit against respondents Emeterio and Narcisa Adlawan. Likewise
questioned is the January 8, 2004 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals which denied
petitioner' s motion for reconsideration.
The instant ejectment suit stemmed from the parties' dispute over Lot 7226 and the house
built thereon, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8842, 5 registered in the name of
the late Dominador Adlawan and located at Barrio Lipata, Municipality of Minglanilla, Cebu.
In his complaint, petitioner claimed that he is an acknowledged illegitimate child 6 of
Dominador who died on May 28, 1987 without any other issue. Claiming to be the sole heir
of Dominador, he executed an affidavit adjudicating to himself Lot 7226 and the house
built thereon. 7 Out of respect and generosity to respondents who are the siblings of his
father, he granted their plea to occupy the subject property provided they would vacate the
same should his need for the property arise. Sometime in January 1999, he verbally
requested respondents to vacate the house and lot, but they refused and filed instead an
action for quieting of title 8 with the RTC. Finally, upon respondents' refusal to heed the last
demand letter to vacate dated August 2, 2000, petitioner filed the instant case on August
9, 2000. 9
On the other hand, respondents Narcisa and Emeterio, 70 and 59 years of age,
respectively, 1 0 denied that they begged petitioner to allow them to stay on the questioned
property and stressed that they have been occupying Lot 7226 and the house standing
thereon since birth. They alleged that Lot 7226 was originally registered in the name of
their deceased father, Ramon Adlawan 1 1 and the ancestral house standing thereon was
owned by Ramon and their mother, Oligia Maacap Adlawan. The spouses had nine 1 2
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
children including the late Dominador and herein surviving respondents Emeterio and
Narcisa. During the lifetime of their parents and deceased siblings, all of them lived on the
said property. Dominador and his wife, Graciana Ramas Adlawan, who died without issue,
also occupied the same. 1 3 Petitioner, on the other hand, is a stranger who never had
possession of Lot 7226.
Sometime in 1961, spouses Ramon and Oligia needed money to finance the renovation of
their house. Since they were not qualified to obtain a loan, they transferred ownership of
Lot 7226 in the name of their son Dominador who was the only one in the family who had a
college education. By virtue of a January 31, 1962 simulated deed of sale, 1 4 a title was
issued to Dominador which enabled him to secure a loan with Lot 7226 as collateral.
Notwithstanding the execution of the simulated deed, Dominador, then single, never
disputed his parents' ownership of the lot. He and his wife, Graciana, did not disturb
respondents' possession of the property until they died on May 28, 1987 and May 6, 1997,
respectively. ScCIaA

Respondents also contended that Dominador's signature at the back of petitioner's birth
certificate was forged, hence, the latter is not an heir of Dominador and has no right to
claim ownership of Lot 7226. 1 5 They argued that even if petitioner is indeed Dominador's
acknowledged illegitimate son, his right to succeed is doubtful because Dominador was
survived by his wife, Graciana. 1 6
On February 12, 2002, the MTC dismissed the complaint holding that the establishment of
petitioner's filiation and the settlement of the estate of Dominador are conditions
precedent to the accrual of petitioner's action for ejectment. It added that since
Dominador was survived by his wife, Graciana, who died 10 years thereafter, her legal heirs
are also entitled to their share in Lot 7226. The dispositive portion thereof, reads:
In View of the foregoing, for failure to prove by preponderance of evidence, the
plaintiff's cause of action, the above-entitled case is hereby Ordered DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 1 7

On appeal by petitioner, the RTC reversed the decision of the MTC holding that the title of
Dominador over Lot 7226 cannot be collaterally attacked. It thus ordered respondents to
turn over possession of the controverted lot to petitioner and to pay compensation for the
use and occupation of the premises. The decretal portion thereof, provides:
Wherefore, the Judgment, dated February 12, 2002, of the Municipal Trial Court of
Minglanilla, Cebu, in Civil Case No. 392, is reversed. Defendants-appellees are
directed to restore to plaintiff-appellant possession of Lot 7226 and the house
thereon, and to pay plaintiff-appellant, beginning in August 2000, compensation
for their use and occupation of the property in the amount of P500.00 a month.
So ordered. 1 8

Meanwhile, the RTC granted petitioner's motion for execution pending appeal 1 9 which was
opposed by the alleged nephew and nieces of Graciana in their motion for leave to
intervene and to file an answer in intervention. 2 0 They contended that as heirs of Graciana,
they have a share in Lot 7226 and that intervention is necessary to protect their right over
the property. In addition, they declared that as co-owners of the property, they are allowing
respondents to stay in Lot 7226 until a formal partition of the property is made.
The RTC denied the motion for leave to intervene. 2 1 It, however, recalled the order granting
the execution pending appeal having lost jurisdiction over the case in view of the petition
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
filed by respondents with the Court of Appeals. 2 2
On September 23, 2003, the Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the RTC and
reinstated the judgment of the MTC. It ratiocinated that petitioner and the heirs of
Graciana are co-owners of Lot 7226. As such, petitioner cannot eject respondents from
the property via an unlawful detainer suit filed in his own name and as the sole owner of the
property. Thus
WHEEFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated September 13,
2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. CEB-
27806 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Judgment dated February 12, 2002
of the Municipal Trial Court of Minglanilla, Metro Cebu, in Civil Case No. 392 is
REINSTATED. Costs against the respondent.
SO ORDERED. 2 3

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the instant petition.
The decisive issue to be resolved is whether or not petitioner can validly maintain the
instant case for ejectment.
Petitioner averred that he is an acknowledged illegitimate son and the sole heir of
Dominador. He in fact executed an affidavit adjudicating to himself the controverted
property. In ruling for the petitioner, the RTC held that the questioned January 31, 1962
deed of sale validly transferred title to Dominador and that petitioner is his acknowledged
illegitimate son who inherited ownership of the questioned lot. The Court notes, however,
that the RTC lost sight of the fact that the theory of succession invoked by petitioner
would end up proving that he is not the sole owner of Lot 7226. This is so because
Dominador was survived not only by petitioner but also by his legal wife, Graciana, who
died 10 years after the demise of Dominador on May 28, 1987. 2 4 By intestate succession,
Graciana and petitioner became co-owners of Lot 7226. 2 5 The death of Graciana on May
6, 1997, did not make petitioner the absolute owner of Lot 7226 because the share of
Graciana passed to her relatives by consanguinity and not to petitioner with whom she had
no blood relations. The Court of Appeals thus correctly held that petitioner has no
authority to institute the instant action as the sole owner of Lot 7226. HaIATC

Petitioner contends that even granting that he has co-owners over Lot 7226, he can on his
own file the instant case pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code which provides:
ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.

This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession. Article 487 includes
forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion
publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion). 2 6 A co-owner may bring
such an action without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs
because the suit is presumed to have been filed to benefit his co-owners. It should be
stressed, however, that where the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to
be the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the litigated property, the action
should be dismissed. 2 7
The renowned civilist, Professor Arturo M. Tolentino, explained
. . . A co-owner may bring such an action, without the necessity of joining all the
other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for
the benefit of all. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
that he claims possession for himself and not for the co-ownership, the
action will not prosper . (Emphasis added) 2 8

In Baloloy v. Hular, 2 9 respondent filed a complaint for quieting of title claiming exclusive
ownership of the property, but the evidence showed that respondent has co-owners over
the property. In dismissing the complaint for want of respondent's authority to file the
case, the Court held that

Under Article 487 of the New Civil Code, any of the co-owners may bring an action
in ejectment. This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of
possession, including an accion publiciana and a reinvidicatory action. A co-
owner may bring such an action without the necessity of joining all the other co-
owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit
of all. Any judgment of the court in favor of the co-owner will benefit the others
but if such judgment is adverse, the same cannot prejudice the rights of the
unimpleaded co-owners. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who
claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession thereof, the action will
not prosper unless he impleads the other co-owners who are indispensable
parties.

In this case, the respondent alone filed the complaint, claiming sole ownership
over the subject property and praying that he be declared the sole owner thereof.
There is no proof that the other co-owners had waived their rights over the subject
property or conveyed the same to the respondent or such co-owners were aware
of the case in the trial court. The trial court rendered judgment declaring the
respondent as the sole owner of the property and entitled to its possession, to the
prejudice of the latter's siblings. Patently then, the decision of the trial court is
erroneous.
Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the respondent was mandated to
implead his siblings, being co-owners of the property, as parties. The respondent
failed to comply with the rule. It must, likewise, be stressed that the Republic of
the Philippines is also an indispensable party as defendant because the
respondent sought the nullification of OCT No. P-16540 which was issued based
on Free Patent No. 384019. Unless the State is impleaded as party-defendant, any
decision of the Court would not be binding on it. It has been held that the absence
of an indispensable party in a case renders ineffective all the proceedings
subsequent to the filing of the complaint including the judgment. The absence of
the respondent's siblings, as parties, rendered all proceedings subsequent to the
filing thereof, including the judgment of the court, ineffective for want of authority
to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. 3 0

In the instant case, it is not disputed that petitioner brought the suit for unlawful detainer in
his name alone and for his own benefit to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana as he even
executed an affidavit of self-adjudication over the disputed property. It is clear therefore
that petitioner cannot validly maintain the instant action considering that he does not
recognize the co-ownership that necessarily flows from his theory of succession to the
property of his father, Dominador.
In the same vein, there is no merit in petitioner's claim that he has the legal personality to
file the present unlawful detainer suit because the ejectment of respondents would benefit
not only him but also his alleged co-owners. However, petitioner forgets that he filed the
instant case to acquire possession of the property and to recover damages. If granted, he
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
alone will gain possession of the lot and benefit from the proceeds of the award of
damages to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana. Hence, petitioner cannot successfully
capitalize on the alleged benefit to his co-owners. Incidentally, it should be pointed out that
in default of the said heirs of Graciana, whom petitioner labeled as "fictitious heirs," the
State will inherit her share 3 1 and will thus be petitioner's co-owner entitled to possession
and enjoyment of the property. SaAcHE

The present controversy should be differentiated from the cases where the Court upheld
the right of a co-owner to file a suit pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code. In Resuena v.
Court of Appeals, 3 2 and Sering v. Plazo, 3 3 the co-owners who filed the ejectment case did
not represent themselves as the exclusive owner of the property. In Celino v. Heirs of Alejo
and Teresa Santiago, 3 4 the complaint for quieting of title was brought in behalf of the co-
owners precisely to recover lots owned in common. 3 5 Similarly in Vencilao v. Camarenta,
et al., 3 6 the amended complaint specified that the plaintiff is one of the heirs who co-owns
the controverted properties.
In the foregoing cases, the plaintiff never disputed the existence of a co-ownership nor
claimed to be the sole or exclusive owner of the litigated lot. A favorable decision therein
would of course inure to the benefit not only of the plaintiff but to his co-owners as well.
The instant case, however, presents an entirely different backdrop as petitioner vigorously
asserted absolute and sole ownership of the questioned lot. In his complaint, petitioner
made the following allegations, to wit:
3. The plaintiff was the only son (illegitimate) and sole heir of the late
DOMINADOR ADLAWAN who died intestate on 28 May 1987 without any other
descendant nor ascendant . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
5. Being the only child/descendant and, therefore, sole heir of the deceased
Dominador Adlawan, the plaintiff became the absolute owner , and
automatically took POSSESSION, of the aforementioned house and lot. . .
(Emphasis added) 3 7

Clearly, the said cases find no application here because petitioner's action operates as a
complete repudiation of the existence of co-ownership and not in representation or
recognition thereof. Dismissal of the complaint is therefore proper. As noted by Former
Supreme Court Associate Justice Edgrado L. Paras "[i]t is understood, of course, that the
action [under Article 487 of the Civil Code] is being instituted for all. Hence, if the co-owner
expressly states that he is bringing the case only for himself, the action should not be
allowed to prosper." 3 8
Indeed, respondents' not less than four decade actual physical possession of the
questioned ancestral house and lot deserves to be respected especially so that petitioner
failed to show that he has the requisite personality and authority as co-owner to file the
instant case. Justice dictates that respondents who are now in the twilight years of their
life be granted possession of their ancestral property where their parents and siblings
lived during their lifetime, and where they, will probably spend the remaining days of their
life.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 23, 2003 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74921 which reinstated the February 12, 2002 Judgment of the
Municipal Trial Court of Minglanilla, Metro Cebu, dismissing petitioner's complaint in Civil
Case No. 392, and its January 8, 2004 Resolution, are AFFIRMED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 31-43. Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr., and concurred in
by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Arturo D. Brion.
2. Id. at 61-65. Penned by Judge Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr.
3. Id. at 59-60. Penned by Judge Gerardo E. Gestopa, Jr.
4. Id. at 57-58.
5. Id. at 71.
6. Born on April 10, 1967; Rollo, p. 72.
7. RTC records, p. 103.
8. Docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-23205 before the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 5; Rollo, pp.
73-81.
9. Records, p. 1.
10. CA Rollo, p. 14.

11. Originally covered by OCT No. 3496 (See Deed of Sale, Rollo, p. 70 and TCT No. 8842,
at Rollo, p. 71, which cancelled OCT No. 3496).
12. Except for respondents, the other siblings are already deceased.

13. Records, pp. 20 & 80-81.


14. Rollo, p. 70.
15. Records, p. 81.
16. Id.
17. Rollo, p. 60.
18. Id. at 65.
19. Id. at 92.
20. Id. at 84-89.
21. Id. at 92.
22. Records, p. 314.
23. Rollo, p. 43.
24. Article 998 of the Civil Code, provides:
ART. 998. If a widow or widower survives with illegitimate children, such widow or
widower shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the illegitimate children or
their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, to the other half.
25. Article 1078 of the Civil Code, states:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
ART. 1078. Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is,
before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of
the deceased.
26. De Guia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120864, October 8, 2003, 413 SCRA 114, 125.
27. Baloloy v. Hular, G.R. No 157767, September 9, 2004, 438 SCRA 80, 90-91.
28. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1983 Edition, p. 157.
29. Supra.
30. Id. at 90-92.
31. Article 1011 of the Civil Code reads:
Art. 1011. In default of persons entitled to succeed in accordance with the provisions
of the preceding Sections, the State shall inherit the whole estate.
32. G.R. No. 128338, March 28, 2005, 454 SCRA 42.
33. G.R. No. L-49731, September 29, 1988, 166 SCRA 84.
34. G.R. No. 161817, July 30, 2004, 435 SCRA 690.

35. Id. at 694.


36. 140 Phil. 99, 101-102.
37. Records, pp. 1 & 2.
38. Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. II, 1999 Edition, p. 294.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

S-ar putea să vă placă și