This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-10-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| 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.[23] In the case of Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago,[24] the Court held that: Respondents herein are co-owners of two parcels of land owned by their deceased mother. The properties were allegedly encroached upon by the petitioner. As co-owner of the properties, each of the heirs may properly bring an action for ejectment, forcible entry, or any kind of action for the recovery of possession of the subject properties. Thus, a co-owner may bring such an action, even without joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. However, if the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that he claims the possession for himself and not for the co-ownership, the action will not prosper. | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| These cases should be distinguished from Baloloy v. Hular[40] and Adlawan v. Adlawan[41] where the actions for quieting of title and unlawful detainer, respectively, were brought for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claimed to be the sole owner. We held that the action will not prosper unless the plaintiff impleaded the other co-owners who are indispensable parties. In these cases, the absence of an indispensable party rendered all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. | |||||
|
2009-03-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Thus, petitioners, in their complaint, do not have to implead their co-owners as parties. The only exception to this rule is when the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and is, thus, entitled to the possession thereof. In such a case, the action will not prosper unless the plaintiff impleads the other co-owners who are indispensable parties.[14] | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Being co-owners of the alleged credit, Quirino and Milagros de Guzman may separately bring an action for the recovery thereof. In the fairly recent cases of Baloloy v. Hular[28] and Adlawan v. Adlawan,[29] we held that, in a co-ownership, co-owners may bring actions for the recovery of co-owned property without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of his co-owners. In the latter case and in that of De Guia v. Court of Appeals,[30] we also held that Article 487 of the Civil Code, which provides that any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment, covers all kinds of action for the recovery of possession.[31] | |||||