G.R. No.
161916, January 20, 2006
ARNELITO ADLAWAN, Petitioner,
v.
EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN and NARCISA M. ADLAWAN, Respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner file an ejectment suit over the lot is dispute and the house built thereon was registered in
the name of the late Dominador Adlawan (died on May 28, 1987) located at Municipality of
Minglanilla, Cebu.
Petitioner Arnelito executed an affidavit adjudicating himself as the sole heir of Dominador being an
acknowledged illegitimate child.
Out of 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.
January 1999 – Petitioner verbally requested respondent to vacate the house and lot but they
refused and filed an action for quieting of title with the RTC.
Respondent unheeded the last demand letter to vacate, hence this ejectment suit.
Respondents:
Denied the allegations.
They have been occupying said properties since birth.
That the lot was originally registered in the name of their father, Ramon Adlawan, together with
the house (with their mother); wherein they had 9 childred.
January 31, 1962 – Executed a simulated deed of sale over the land to Dominador; which enable
him to secure a loan with the subject lot as collateral.
That Dominador was survived by his wife, Graciana.
MTC: In favor of respondents; Dismissed the complaint. 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.
That the legal heirs of Graciana, (died 10 years after – May 6, 1997) are also entitled to their
share of the lot.
RTC: REVERSED. The title of Dominador over Lot 7226 cannot be collaterally attacked.
CA: Reinstated MTC decision. Petitioner and heirs of Graciana are co-owners of the lot. Hence,
petitioner cannot eject respondents via an unlawful detainer suit filed in his own name. MR denied.
Hence, this instant petition.
ISSUE: WON petitioner is the sole owner of the lot subject to the ejectment suit.
HELD: NO.
Under the rules on succession (which petitioner invoked), 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. Hence, through intestate succession, Graciana and petitioner became co-owners of Lot 7226.
The share of Graciana passed to her relatives by consanguinity and not to petitioner with whom she had
no blood relations.
Petitioner:
He can, on his own, file the instant case pursuant to Article 487:
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).[26] 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.
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 (Arturo Tolentino)
In the case at bar:
Petitioner brought the ejectment suit in his name alone or his own benefit to the exclusion of the heirs
of Graciana as he even executed an affidavit of self- adjudication over the disputed property.
Petitioner: He filed the ejectment suit for the benefit of all
In the case: he filed the instant case to acquire possession of the property and to recover damages.
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[31] and will thus be petitioner's co-owner
entitled to possession and enjoyment of the property.
In the other cases:
The co-owner who filed the same suit did not represent themselves as the exclusive owners of
the property. (Resuena v. CA; Sering v. Plazo)
The complaint for quieting of title was brought in behalf of the co-owners precisely to recover
lots owned in common. (Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago)
The amended complaint specified that the plaintiff is one of the heirs who co-owns the
controverted properties. (Similarly in Vencilao v. Camarenta)
Plaintiffs herein never disputed the existence of a co-ownership nor claimed to be the sole or exclusive
owner of the litigated lot.
Case at bar: Petitioner vigorously asserted absolute and sole ownership of the questioned lot. In his
complaint. Said allegations:
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 x x x.
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
Hence, petitioner's action operates as a complete repudiation of the existence of co-ownership and not
in representation or recognition thereof.
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.
Narcisa and Emeterio, 70 and 59
A co-owner by virtue of Art. 487 is allowed to bring an action without necessity of including all the co-
owners as plaintiffs for it is presumed to be for the benefit of all BUT if the action of the plaintiff
alone, the action should be dismissed.
