128. Adlawan v.

Adlawan - Arnelito brought the suit for unlawful detainer in his name alone and for his own
G.R. No. 161916 benefit to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana as he even executed an affidavit of
January 2, 2006 self- adjudication over the disputed property.
SPV o It is clear therefore that petitioner cannot validly maintain the instant
Topic: Co-ownership action considering that he does not recognize the co-ownership that
Petitioners: ARNELITO ADLAWAN necessarily flows from his theory of succession to the property of his
Respondents: EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN and NARCISA M. ADLAWAN father, Dominador.
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago - There is no merit in petitioner's claim that he has the legal personality to file the
present unlawful detainer suit because the ejectment of respondents would benefit
not only him but also his alleged co-owners.
FACTS
o However, petitioner forgets that he filed the instant case to acquire
- The property in dispute is Lot 7226 and the house built thereon, registered in the
name of the late Dominador Adlawan, located in Barrio Lipata, Municipality of possession of the property and to recover damages.
Minglanilla, Cebu. o If granted, he alone will gain possession of the lot and benefit from the
- Arnelito claims that he is an acknowledged illegitimate child of Dominador, who proceeds of the award of damages to the exclusion of the heirs of
died without any other issue. Graciana.
o He then executed an affidavit adjudicating to himself the subject o Hence, petitioner cannot successfully capitalize on the alleged benefit to
property. his co-owners. Incidentally, it should be pointed out that in default of the
- Out of generosity to Emeterio and Narcisa, who were siblings of his father, he said heirs of Graciana, whom petitioner labeled as 'fictitious heirs, the
allowed them to occupy the property provided that they would vacate the same State will inherit her share and will thus be petitioner's co-owner entitled
should his need for the property arise. to possession and enjoyment of the property.
o He verbally requested the respondents to vacate, but they refused and - Petitioner's action operates as a complete repudiation of the existence of co-
filed instead a complaint for quieting of title. ownership and not in representation or recognition thereof.
o By virtue of the repsondents’ failure to heed the last demand letter, o Dismissal of the complaint is therefore proper.
Arnelito filed a complaint for ejectment. - As noted by Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Edgrado L. Paras 'it is
- Narcisa and Emeterio, who were 70 and 59 years old respectively, contended that understood, of course, that the action under Article 487 of the Civil Code is being
they have been occupying the house and lot since birth. instituted for all. Hence, if the co-owner expressly states that he is bringing the case
o The house and lot was originally owned by their parents, Ramon and only for himself, the action should not be allowed to prosper.
- Indeed, respondents' not less than four decade actual physical possession of the
Oligia.
questioned ancestral house and lot deserves to be respected especially so that
o Their parents needed the money to finance the renovation of their home,
petitioner failed to show that he has the requisite personality and authority as co-
but they could not obtain a loan so they transferred ownership of the
owner to file the instant case.
property to Dominador, who was the only one who had college
o Justice dictates that respondents who are now in the twilight years of
education.
their life be granted possession of their ancestral property where their
o Dominador’s signature at the back of petitioner Arnelito’s birth certificate
parents and siblings lived during their lifetime, and where they, will
is forged; hence, the latter is not an heir and has no right to claim
probably spend the remaining days of their life.
ownership of the subject property.
- MTC dismissed the complaint since Arnelito’s filiation and the settlement of the
Dispositive
estate of Dominador are conditions precedent to the accrual of petitioner's action
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 23, 2003 Decision of the Court of
for ejectment.
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74921 which reinstated the February 12, 2002 Judgment of the
- RTC reversed; title of Dominador over Lot 7226 cannot be collaterally attacked.
Municipal Trial Court of Minglanilla, Metro Cebu, dismissing petitioner's complaint in Civil
- CA reinstated MTC decision: Arnelito and the heirs of Graciana (Narcisa and
Case No. 392, and its January 8, 2004 Resolution, are AFFIRMED.
Emeterio) are co-owners of Lot 7226.
o As such, Arnelito cannot eject Narcisa and Emeterio from the property via
an unlawful detainer suit filed in his own name and as the sole owner of
the property.

ISSUE: W/N Arnelito may validly maintain a case for ejectment - NO

HELD: