February 20, 2019
G.R. No. 220008
SOCORRO T. CLEMENTE, as substituted by SALVADOR T.
CLEMENTE, Petitioner
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Department of Public Works and
Highways, Region IV-A), Respondent
Petitioner can file the action for ejectment without impleading his co-
owners. In Wee v. De Castro, wherein petitioner therein argued that the
respondent cannot maintain an action for ejectment against him, without
joining all his co-owners, we ruled in this wise:
Article 487 of the New Civil Code is explicit on this point:
ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
This article covers all kinds of action for the recovery of possession, i.e.,
forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of
possession (accion publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion de
reivindicacion). As explained by the renowned civil[i]st, Professor Arturo M.
Tolentino:
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 more recent case of Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, this Court
declared that a co-owner is not even a necessary party to an action for
ejectment, for complete relief can 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.
In this case, although petitioner alone filed the complaint for unlawful
detainer, he stated in the complaint that he is one of the heirs of the late
Lilia Castigador, his mother, who inherited the subject lot, from her
parents. Petitioner did not claim exclusive ownership of the subject lot, but
he filed the complaint for the purpose of recovering its possession which
would redound to the benefit of the co-owners. Since petitioner recognized
the existence of a co-ownership, he, as a co-owner, can bring the action
without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-
plaintiffs.25 (Emphasis supplied)
G.R. No. 161916 January 20, 2006
ARNELITO ADLAWAN, Petitioner,
vs.
EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN and NARCISA M. ADLAWAN, Respondents.
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).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.27
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. (Emphasis added)28
In Baloloy v. Hular,29 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.
