Scribd
Upload
107 views2 pages

IGLESIA NI KRISTO v. PONFERRADA

The plaintiffs filed a case to quiet title over a property originally owned by Enrique Santos based on a title he held. After his death, the property was claimed by the defendant based on a different title. The defendant claimed the case was defective because while Enrique Santos' heirs were listed as plaintiffs, there was nothing showing Enrique's authority to represent them. The court ruled that as co-owners of the property, any one of the heirs could file the case, as it would be for the benefit of all co-owners. A single co-owner does not need to join all other co-owners as plaintiffs. Therefore, Enrique Santos could represent his co-heir plaintiffs and the case would proceed.

Uploaded by

Ansai Claudine Calugan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
107 views2 pages

IGLESIA NI KRISTO v. PONFERRADA

The plaintiffs filed a case to quiet title over a property originally owned by Enrique Santos based on a title he held. After his death, the property was claimed by the defendant based on a different title. The defendant claimed the case was defective because while Enrique Santos' heirs were listed as plaintiffs, there was nothing showing Enrique's authority to represent them. The court ruled that as co-owners of the property, any one of the heirs could file the case, as it would be for the benefit of all co-owners. A single co-owner does not need to join all other co-owners as plaintiffs. Therefore, Enrique Santos could represent his co-heir plaintiffs and the case would proceed.

Uploaded by

Ansai Claudine Calugan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

(124) IGLESIA NI KRISTO v.

PONFERRADA
G.R. No. 168943 October 27, 2006

A co-owner may bring such an action, even without joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs,
because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.

FACTS: Plaintiffs/ respondents alleged therein that, during his lifetime, Enrique Santos
was the owner of a 936-square-meter parcel of land located in Tandang Sora, Quezon
City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 57272 issued by the Register of
Deeds on July 27, 1961 which cancelled TCT No. 57193-289. He had been in possession
of the owner’s duplicate of said title and had been in continuous, open, adverse and
peaceful possession of the property. He died on February 9, 1970 and was survived by
his wife, Alicia Santos, and other plaintiffs, who were their children. Sometime in
February 1996, plaintiffs learned that defendant was claiming ownership over the
property based on TCT No. 321744 issued on September 18, 1984 which, on its face,
cancelled TCT No. 320898, under the name of the Philippine National Bank, which
allegedly cancelled TCT No. 252070 in the names of the spouses Marcos and Romana
dela Cruz. Enrique Santos, during his lifetime, and his heirs, after his death, never
encumbered or disposed the property.

In 1996, plaintiffs had the property fenced but defendant deprived them of the final use
and enjoyment of their property. Plaintiffs filed a complaint praying that the judgment
be rendered quieting their title and/or recover possession of their said property in the
name of deceased Enrique Santos, covered by said TCT No. RT-110323(57272) of the
Register of Deeds at Quezon City. Defendant/ petitioner claimed that the complaint is
defective and moved for the dismissal of the complaint. One reason is that, although
there is an allegation that Enrique Santos represents the other heirs, there is nothing in
the pleading to show the latter’s authority to that effect. The trial court denied the
defendants motion to dismiss and was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Did the CA err when it held in favor of the authority of the Respondent Enrique
G. Santos to represent his co- heirs in the filing of the complaint against the petitioner.

RULING: No. Respondents are considered co-owners pro indiviso of the whole property
since no specific portion yet has been adjudicated to any of the heirs. As such co-
owners, each of the heirs may properly bring an action for ejectment, forcible entry and
detainer, or any kind of action for the recovery of possession of the subject properties.
Consequently, as one of the heirs and principal party, the lone signature of Enrique G.
Santos in the verification and certification is sufficient for the RTC to take cognizance of
the case. The commonality of their interest gave Enrique G. Santos the authority to
inform the RTC on behalf of the other plaintiffs therein that they have not commenced
any action or claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal, and that
there is no other pending action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same
issues. Thus, a co-owner may bring such an action, even without joining all the other co-
owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.
Hence, the RTC correctly denied the motion to dismiss filed by petitioner and the CA did
not err in affirming the application of the rule on substantial compliance.

The petition was denied.

You might also like