Scribd
Upload
118 views2 pages

Ampil Vs Manahan

Exequiel Ampil filed a complaint for ejectment against Perfecto Manahan and his family to vacate property owned by Exequiel's mother, Albina Ampil. The MTC and RTC ruled in favor of Exequiel, but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that yes, Exequiel has the authority to file the petition on behalf of his co-heirs as one co-owner can bring an action for ejectment without joining the others based on provisions in the Civil Code and jurisprudence. The suit is presumed for the benefit of all co-owners.

Uploaded by

Chris Ronnel Cabrito Catubao
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
118 views2 pages

Ampil Vs Manahan

Exequiel Ampil filed a complaint for ejectment against Perfecto Manahan and his family to vacate property owned by Exequiel's mother, Albina Ampil. The MTC and RTC ruled in favor of Exequiel, but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that yes, Exequiel has the authority to file the petition on behalf of his co-heirs as one co-owner can bring an action for ejectment without joining the others based on provisions in the Civil Code and jurisprudence. The suit is presumed for the benefit of all co-owners.

Uploaded by

Chris Ronnel Cabrito Catubao
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

8. Ampil, et. al. vs.

Spouses Manahan
GR No. 175990, October 11, 2012

FACTS:

Albina Ampil (Albina) was the owner of two (2) adjoining residential lots situated in Sto. Ni,
Paombong, Bulacan. Albina allowed Perfecto Manahan (Perfecto) and his family, including
Teresa and Mario Manahan (Manahans), to occupy a portion of the said properties on the
condition that they would vacate the same should the need to use it arise.

After the death of Albina, her heirs, represented by Exequiel Ampil (Exequiel), demanded
Perfecto and his family to vacate the property in question but the latter refused. Thus, Exequiel,
as representative of the heirs of the late Albina, filed a complaint for ejectment before the MTC.
To prove ownership over the property, Exequiel presented the tax declarations covering the
properties and a certification issued by the Municipality of Paombong, Bulacan, showing that
their mother, Albina, had been paying the corresponding real property taxes thereon. The MTC
rendered judgment in favor of Albinas heirs. The MTC relied on the tax declarations submitted
as evidence.

The RTC affirmed the MTC. However, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this
petition.

The Manahans move for the dismissal of this petition on the ground that Exequiel has no
authority to institute the present case. They also aver that they and their predecessors-in-interest
had openly and continuously possessed the subject land since time immemorial.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Exequiel Ampil has the authority to file the present petition on behalf of his co-
heirs?

HELD:

Yes.

Article 487 of the Civil Code provides that anyone of the co-owners may bring an action for
ejectment without joining the others. The action is not limited to ejectment cases but includes all
kinds of suits for recovery of possession because the suit is presumed to have been instituted for
the benefit of all. Also, in the case of Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, this Court ruled that a
co-owner was not even a necessary party to an action for ejectment, for complete relief could be
afforded even in his absence, thus: "In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real
parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and the relevant
jurisprudence, any one of them may bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of co-
owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit
for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners
are not indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be
afforded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to have been filed
for the benefit of all co-owners."

You might also like