Adlawan V Adlawan

Adlawan vs Adlawan : 161916 : January 20, 2006 : J.
Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
10/16/16, 12:44 PM
ARNELITO ADLAWAN, G.R. No. 161916

Petitioner,
Present:
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairman),
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN and
NARCISA M. ADLAWAN, Promulgated:
Respondents.
January 20, 2006
On the other hand, respondents Narcisa and Emeterio, 70 and 59 years of age,
[10]
respectively,
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 in the name of their
[11]
deceased father, Ramon Adlawan
and the ancestral house standing thereon was owned
[12]
by Ramon and their mother, Oligia Maacap Adlawan. The spouses had nine
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
[13]
occupied the same.
Petitioner, on the other hand, is a stranger who never had possession
of Lot 7226.
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
[1]
of the Court of
[2]
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74921 which set aside the September 13, 2002 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. CEB-27806, and
[3]
reinstated the February 12, 2002 Judgment
of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Minglanilla, Metro Cebu, in Civil Case No. 392, dismissing petitioner Arnelito Adlawans
unlawful detainer suit against respondents Emeterio and Narcisa Adlawan. Likewise
[4]
questioned is the January 8, 2004 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals which denied
petitioners motion for reconsideration.
Sometime in 1961, spouses Ramon and Oligia needed money to finance the
renovation of their house. Since they were not qualified 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,
[14]
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
The instant ejectment suit stemmed from the parties dispute over Lot 7226 and the house
[5]
built thereon, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8842, registered in the name of
the late Dominador Adlawan and located at Barrio Lipata, Municipality of Minglanilla,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/161916.htm
10/16/16, 12:44 PM
[6]
Cebu. In his complaint, petitioner claimed that he is an acknowledged illegitimate child
of Dominador who died on May 28, 1987 without any other issue. Claiming to be the sole
heir of Dominador, he executed an affidavit adjudicating to himself Lot 7226 and the house
[7]
built thereon.
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 filed instead an
[8]
action for quieting of title
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]
9, 2000.
FIRST DIVISION
Assailed in this petition for review is the September 23, 2003 Decision
Adlawan vs Adlawan : 161916 : January 20, 2006 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10
10/16/16, 12:44 PM
Respondents also contended that Dominadors signature at the back of petitioners birth
certificate was forged, hence, the latter is not an heir of Dominador and has no right to claim
[15]
ownership of Lot 7226.
They argued that even if petitioner is indeed Dominadors
acknowledged illegitimate son, his right to succeed is doubtful because Dominador was
[16]
survived by his wife, Graciana.
On February 12, 2002, the MTC dismissed the complaint holding that the establishment of
petitioners filiation and the settlement of the estate of Dominador are conditions precedent
to the accrual of petitioners 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:
[21]
The RTC denied the motion for leave to intervene.
It, however, recalled the order
granting the execution pending appeal having lost jurisdiction over the case in view of the
[22]
petition filed by respondents with the Court of Appeals.
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 filed in his own name and as the sole owner of the property.
Thus
In View of the foregoing, for failure to prove by preponderance of evidence, the plaintiffs
cause of action, the above-entitled case is hereby Ordered DISMISSED.
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.
[17]
SO ORDERED.
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,
[23]
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the instant petition.
provides:
The decisive issue to be resolved is whether or not petitioner can validly maintain the
instant case for ejectment.
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.
Petitioner averred that he is an acknowledged illegitimate son and the sole heir of
Dominador. He in fact executed an affidavit 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
[18]
[19]
Meanwhile, the RTC granted petitioners motion for execution pending appeal
which was opposed by the alleged nephew and nieces of Graciana in their motion for leave
10/16/16, 12:44 PM
which was opposed by the alleged nephew and nieces of Graciana in their motion for leave
[20]
to intervene and to file an answer in intervention.
They contended that as heirs 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.
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.
So ordered.
Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10
10/16/16, 12:44 PM
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
[24]
the demise of Dominador on May 28, 1987.
By intestate succession, Graciana and
[25]
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.
10/16/16, 12:44 PM
owners over the property. In dismissing the complaint for want of respondents 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.
In this case, the respondent alone filed 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 latters siblings. Patently then, the decision of the trial
court is erroneous.
Petitioner contends that even granting that he has co-owners over Lot 7226, he can on
his own file 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.
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 nullification 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 filing of the complaint including the judgment. The absence of
the respondents siblings, as parties, rendered all proceedings subsequent to the filing thereof,
including the judgment of the court, ineffective for want of authority to act, not only as to the
[30]
absent parties but even as to those present.
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
[26]
(accion publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion).
A co-owner
may bring such an action without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as coplaintiffs 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
[27]
be dismissed.
In the instant case, it is not disputed that petitioner brought the suit for unlawful
detainer in his name alone and for his own benefit to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana
as he even executed an affidavit 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 flows from his theory of succession to the
property of his father, Dominador.
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
[28]
for the co-ownership, the action will not prosper. (Emphasis added)
In the same vein, there is no merit in petitioners 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. However, petitioner forgets that he filed the
instant case to acquire possession of the property and to recover damages. If granted, he
alone will gain possession of the lot and benefit from the proceeds of the award of damages
to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana. Hence, petitioner cannot successfully capitalize on
[29]
In Baloloy v. Hular,
respondent filed a complaint for quieting of title claiming
exclusive ownership of the property, but the evidence showed that respondent has coowners over the property. In dismissing the complaint for want of respondents authority to
Page 5 of 10
Page 6 of 10
10/16/16, 12:44 PM
to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana. Hence, petitioner cannot successfully capitalize on
the alleged benefit to his co-owners. 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
[31]
her share
and will thus be petitioners co-owner entitled to possession and enjoyment of
the property.
10/16/16, 12:44 PM
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 coowner expressly states that he is bringing the case only for himself, the action should not be
[38]
allowed to prosper.
The present controversy should be differentiated from the cases where the Court
upheld the right of a co-owner to file a suit pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code. In
[32]
[33]
Resuena v. Court of Appeals,
and Sering v. Plazo,
the co-owners who filed the
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 file 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 remaining days of their life.
ejectment case did not represent themselves as the exclusive owner of the property. In
[34]
Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago,
the complaint for quieting of title was
[35]
brought in behalf of the co-owners precisely to recover lots owned in common.
[36]
Similarly in Vencilao v. Camarenta,
the amended complaint specified that the plaintiff is
one of the heirs who co-owns the controverted properties.
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 petitioners
complaint in Civil Case No. 392, and its January 8, 2004 Resolution, are AFFIRMED.
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 benefit 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:
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
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 x
x x.
WE CONCUR:
xxxx
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
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,
[37]
of the aforementioned house and lot x x x. (Emphasis added)
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice
Clearly, the said cases find no application here because petitioners action operates as
a complete repudiation of the existence of co-ownership and not in representation or
Page 7 of 10
Page 8 of 10
10/16/16, 12:44 PM
[19]
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
Id. at 92.
Id. at 84-89.
Id. at 92.
RTC records, p. 314.
Rollo, p. 43.
[24]
CERTIFICATION
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]
RTC records, pp. 1 & 2.
[38]
Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. II, 1999 Edition, p. 294.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1]
Rollo, pp. 31- 43. Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina GuevaraSalonga 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]
RTC records, p. 1.
[10]
CA rollo, p. 14.
[11]
Originally covered by OCT No. 3496 (See Deed of Sale of One Parcel of Land, 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]
RTC records, pp. 20 & 80-81.
[14]
Rollo, p. 70.
[15]
RTC records, p. 81.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Rollo, p. 60.
[18]
Id. at 65.
10/16/16, 12:44 PM
Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10

Adlawan V Adlawan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adlawan V Adlawan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adlawan vs Adlawan : 161916 : January 20, 2006 : J.

Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

ARNELITO ADLAWAN, G.R. No. 161916

The renowned civilist, Professor Arturo M. Tolentino, explained

recognition thereof. Dismissal of the complaint is therefore proper. As noted by Former

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

Article 998 of the Civil Code, provides:

You might also like