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 a davit 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 le 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 led to bene t his co-owners. It should be stressed, however, that where the suit
is for the bene t 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 the suit is deemed to be instituted for the bene t of all. If the action is for the bene t 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 not disputed that
petitioner brought the suit for unlawful detainer in his name alone and for his own
bene t to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana as he even executed an a davit 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 ows 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 le the present unlawful detainer suit because the ejectment of
respondents would bene t not only him but also his alleged co-owners. However,
petitioner forgets that he led the instant case to acquire possession of the property
and to recover damages. If granted, he alone will gain possession of the lot and bene t
from the proceeds of the award of damages to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana.
Hence, petitioner cannot successfully capitalize on the alleged bene t to his co-owners.
Incidentally, it should be pointed out that in default of the said heirs of Graciana, whom
petitioner labeled as " ctitious 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 a davit 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 led 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 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 Mañacap Adlawan. The
spouses had nine 1 2 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 nance the
renovation of their house. Since they were not quali ed 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 certi cate 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 liation 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 le an answer in intervention. 2 0 They contended that as heirs
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 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 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 led 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 a davit 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 le 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 led to bene t his
co-owners. It should be stressed, however, that where the suit is for the bene t of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 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 bene t of all. If the action is for the bene t of the plaintiff alone,
such 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 led 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 bene t
of all. Any judgment of the court in favor of the co-owner will bene t 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 bene t 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 led 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 nulli cation 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 ling of the complaint including the judgment.
The absence of the respondent's siblings, as parties, rendered all proceedings
subsequent to the ling 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 bene t to the exclusion of the heirs of
Graciana as he even executed an a davit of self-adjudication over the disputed
property. It is clear therefore that petitioner cannot validly maintain the instant action
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 considering that he does not recognize the co-ownership that necessarily ows 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 le the present unlawful detainer suit because the ejectment of
respondents would bene t not only him but also his alleged co-owners. However,
petitioner forgets that he led the instant case to acquire possession of the property
and to recover damages. If granted, he alone will gain possession of the lot and bene t
from the proceeds of the award of damages to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana.
Hence, petitioner cannot successfully capitalize on the alleged bene t to his co-owners.
Incidentally, it should be pointed out that in default of the said heirs of Graciana, whom
petitioner labeled as " ctitious 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 le 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 led 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 speci ed 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 bene t 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 nd 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 le 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 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.
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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 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:
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. 2019 cdasiaonline.com