Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

161916 January 20, 2006

ARNELITO ADLAWAN, Petitioner, vs. EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN an NARCISA M. ADLAWAN, Respondents.

D !NARES"SANTIAGO, J.:

!ISION

"ssailed in this petition for revie# is the Septe$ber %&, %''& Decision ( of the !ourt of "ppeals in !")*.R. SP No. +,-%( #hich set aside the Septe$ber (&, %''% Decision % of the Re.ional Trial !ourt /RT!0 of !ebu !it1, 2ranch +, in !ivil !ase No. ! 2)%+3'4, and reinstated the Februar1 (%, %''% 5ud.$ent & of the Municipal Trial !ourt /MT!0 of Min.lanilla, Metro !ebu, in !ivil !ase No. &-%, dis$issin. petitioner "rnelito "dla#an6s unla#ful detainer suit a.ainst respondents $eterio and Narcisa "dla#an. 7i8e#ise 9uestioned is the 5anuar1 3, %'', Resolution ,of the !ourt of "ppeals #hich denied petitioner6s $otion for reconsideration. The instant e:ect$ent suit ste$$ed fro$ the parties6 dispute over 7ot +%%4 and the house built thereon, covered b1 Transfer !ertificate of Title No. 33,%,; re.istered in the na$e of the late Do$inador "dla#an and located at 2arrio 7ipata, Municipalit1 of Min.lanilla, !ebu. In his co$plaint, petitioner clai$ed that he is an ac8no#led.ed ille.iti$ate child4 of Do$inador #ho died on Ma1 %3, (-3+ #ithout an1 other issue. !lai$in. to be the sole heir of Do$inador, he e<ecuted an affidavit ad:udicatin. to hi$self 7ot +%%4 and the house built thereon. + Out of respect and .enerosit1 to respondents #ho are the siblin.s of his father, he .ranted their plea to occup1 the sub:ect propert1 provided the1 #ould vacate the sa$e should his need for the propert1 arise. So$eti$e in 5anuar1 (---, he verball1 re9uested respondents to vacate the house and lot, but the1 refused and filed instead an action for 9uietin. of title 3 #ith the RT!. Finall1, upon respondents6 refusal to heed the last de$and letter to vacate dated "u.ust %, %''', petitioner filed the instant case on "u.ust -, %'''. On the other hand, respondents Narcisa and $eterio, +' and ;- 1ears of a.e, respectivel1, (' denied that the1 be..ed petitioner to allo# the$ to sta1 on the 9uestioned propert1 and stressed that the1 have been occup1in. 7ot +%%4 and the house standin. thereon since birth. The1 alle.ed that 7ot +%%4 #as ori.inall1 re.istered in the na$e of their deceased father, Ra$on "dla#an (( and the ancestral house standin. thereon #as o#ned b1 Ra$on and their $other, Oli.ia Ma=acap "dla#an. The spouses had nine (% children includin. the late Do$inador and herein survivin. respondents $eterio and Narcisa. Durin. the lifeti$e of their parents and deceased siblin.s, all of the$ lived on the said propert1. Do$inador and his #ife, *raciana Ra$as "dla#an, #ho died #ithout issue, also occupied the sa$e.(& Petitioner, on the other hand, is a stran.er #ho never had possession of 7ot +%%4. So$eti$e in (-4(, spouses Ra$on and Oli.ia needed $one1 to finance the renovation of their house. Since the1 #ere not 9ualified to obtain a loan, the1 transferred o#nership of 7ot +%%4 in the na$e of their son Do$inador #ho #as the onl1 one in the fa$il1 #ho had a colle.e education. 21 virtue of a 5anuar1 &(, (-4% si$ulated deed of sale,(, a title #as issued to Do$inador #hich enabled hi$ to secure a loan #ith 7ot +%%4 as collateral. Not#ithstandin. the e<ecution of the si$ulated deed, Do$inador, then sin.le, never disputed his parents6 o#nership of the lot. >e and his #ife, *raciana, did not disturb respondents6 possession of the propert1 until the1 died on Ma1 %3, (-3+ and Ma1 4, (--+, respectivel1. Respondents also contended that Do$inador6s si.nature at the bac8 of petitioner6s birth certificate #as for.ed, hence, the latter is not an heir of Do$inador and has no ri.ht to clai$ o#nership of 7ot +%%4. (; The1 ar.ued that even if petitioner is indeed Do$inador6s ac8no#led.ed ille.iti$ate son, his ri.ht to succeed is doubtful because Do$inador #as survived b1 his #ife, *raciana.(4

On Februar1 (%, %''%, the MT! dis$issed the co$plaint holdin. that the establish$ent of petitioner6s filiation and the settle$ent of the estate of Do$inador are conditions precedent to the accrual of petitioner6s action for e:ect$ent. It added that since Do$inador #as survived b1 his #ife, *raciana, #ho died (' 1ears thereafter, her le.al heirs are also entitled to their share in 7ot +%%4. The dispositive portion thereof, reads? In Vie# of the fore.oin., for failure to prove b1 preponderance of evidence, the plaintiff6s cause of action, the above) entitled case is hereb1 Ordered DISMISS D. SO ORD R D.(+ On appeal b1 petitioner, the RT! reversed the decision of the MT! holdin. that the title of Do$inador over 7ot +%%4 cannot be collaterall1 attac8ed. It thus ordered respondents to turn over possession of the controverted lot to petitioner and to pa1 co$pensation for the use and occupation of the pre$ises. The decretal portion thereof, provides? @herefore, the 5ud.$ent, dated Februar1 (%, %''%, of the Municipal Trial !ourt of Min.lanilla, !ebu, in !ivil !ase No. &-%, is reversed. Defendants)appellees are directed to restore to plaintiff)appellant possession of 7ot +%%4 and the house thereon, and to pa1 plaintiff)appellant, be.innin. in "u.ust %''', co$pensation for their use and occupation of the propert1 in the a$ount of P;''.'' a $onth. So ordered.(3 Mean#hile, the RT! .ranted petitioner6s $otion for e<ecution pendin. appeal (- #hich #as opposed b1 the alle.ed nephe# and nieces of *raciana in their $otion for leave to intervene and to file an ans#er in intervention. %' The1 contended that as heirs of *raciana, the1 have a share in 7ot +%%4 and that intervention is necessar1 to protect their ri.ht over the propert1. In addition, the1 declared that as co)o#ners of the propert1, the1 are allo#in. respondents to sta1 in 7ot +%%4 until a for$al partition of the propert1 is $ade. The RT! denied the $otion for leave to intervene. %( It, ho#ever, recalled the order .rantin. the e<ecution pendin. appeal havin. lost :urisdiction over the case in vie# of the petition filed b1 respondents #ith the !ourt of "ppeals. %% On Septe$ber %&, %''&, the !ourt of "ppeals set aside the decision of the RT! and reinstated the :ud.$ent of the MT!. It ratiocinated that petitioner and the heirs of *raciana are co)o#ners of 7ot +%%4. "s such, petitioner cannot e:ect respondents fro$ the propert1 via an unla#ful detainer suit filed in his o#n na$e and as the sole o#ner of the propert1. Thus A @> FOR , pre$ises considered, the appealed Decision dated Septe$ber (&, %''% of the Re.ional Trial !ourt of !ebu !it1, 2ranch +, in !ivil !ase No. ! 2)%+3'4 is R V RS D and S T "SID , and the 5ud.$ent dated Februar1 (%, %''% of the Municipal Trial !ourt of Min.lanilla, Metro !ebu, in !ivil !ase No. &-% is R INST"T D. !osts a.ainst the respondent. SO ORD R D.%& Petitioner6s $otion for reconsideration #as denied. >ence, the instant petition. The decisive issue to be resolved is #hether or not petitioner can validl1 $aintain the instant case for e:ect$ent. Petitioner averred that he is an ac8no#led.ed ille.iti$ate son and the sole heir of Do$inador. >e in fact e<ecuted an affidavit ad:udicatin. to hi$self the controverted propert1. In rulin. for the petitioner, the RT! held that the 9uestioned 5anuar1 &(, (-4% deed of sale validl1 transferred title to Do$inador and that petitioner is his ac8no#led.ed ille.iti$ate son #ho inherited o#nership of the 9uestioned lot. The !ourt notes, ho#ever, that the RT! lost si.ht of the fact that the theor1 of succession invo8ed b1 petitioner #ould end up provin. that he is not the sole o#ner of 7ot +%%4. This is so because Do$inador #as survived not onl1 b1 petitioner but also b1 his le.al #ife, *raciana, #ho died (' 1ears after the de$ise of Do$inador on Ma1 %3, (-3+. %, 21 intestate succession, *raciana and petitioner beca$e co)o#ners of 7ot +%%4.%; The death of *raciana on Ma1 4, (--+, did not $a8e petitioner the absolute o#ner of 7ot +%%4 because the share of *raciana passed to her relatives b1 consan.uinit1 and not to

petitioner #ith #ho$ she had no blood relations. The !ourt of "ppeals thus correctl1 held that petitioner has no authorit1 to institute the instant action as the sole o#ner of 7ot +%%4. Petitioner contends that even .rantin. that he has co)o#ners over 7ot +%%4, he can on his o#n file the instant case pursuant to "rticle ,3+ of the !ivil !ode #hich provides? "RT. ,3+. "n1 one of the co)o#ners $a1 brin. an action in e:ect$ent. This article covers all 8inds of actions for the recover1 of possession. "rticle ,3+ includes forcible entr1 and unla#ful detainer /accion interdictal0, recover1 of possession /accion publiciana), and recover1 of o#nership /accion de reivindicacion0.%4 " co)o#ner $a1 brin. such an action #ithout the necessit1 of :oinin. all the other co)o#ners as co) plaintiffs because the suit is presu$ed to have been filed to benefit his co)o#ners. It should be stressed, ho#ever, that #here the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone #ho clai$s to be the sole o#ner and entitled to the possession of the liti.ated propert1, the action should be dis$issed. %+ The reno#ned civilist, Professor "rturo M. Tolentino, e<plained A " co)o#ner $a1 brin. such an action, #ithout the necessit1 of :oinin. all the other co)o#ners as co)plaintiffs, because the suit is dee$ed to be instituted for the benefit of all. I# $%& a'$(on () #or $%& *&n&#($ o# $%& +,a(n$(## a,on&, )u'% $%a$ %& ',a(-) +o))&))(on #or %(-)&,# an no$ #or $%& 'o"o.n&r)%(+, $%& a'$(on .(,, no$ +ro)+&r . / $phasis added0%3 In Baloloy v. Hular,%- respondent filed a co$plaint for 9uietin. of title clai$in. e<clusive o#nership of the propert1, but the evidence sho#ed that respondent has co)o#ners over the propert1. In dis$issin. the co$plaint for #ant of respondent6s authorit1 to file the case, the !ourt held that A Bnder "rticle ,3+ of the Ne# !ivil !ode, an1 of the co)o#ners $a1 brin. an action in e:ect$ent. This article covers all 8inds of actions for the recover1 of possession, includin. an accion publiciana and a reinvidicator1 action. " co) o#ner $a1 brin. such an action #ithout the necessit1 of :oinin. all the other co)o#ners as co)plaintiffs because the suit is dee$ed to be instituted for the benefit of all. "n1 :ud.$ent of the court in favor of the co)o#ner #ill benefit the others but if such :ud.$ent is adverse, the sa$e cannot pre:udice the ri.hts of the uni$pleaded co)o#ners. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone #ho clai$s to be the sole o#ner and entitled to the possession thereof, the action #ill not prosper unless he i$pleads the other co)o#ners #ho are indispensable parties. In this case, the respondent alone filed the co$plaint, clai$in. sole o#nership over the sub:ect propert1 and pra1in. that he be declared the sole o#ner thereof. There is no proof that the other co)o#ners had #aived their ri.hts over the sub:ect propert1 or conve1ed the sa$e to the respondent or such co)o#ners #ere a#are of the case in the trial court. The trial court rendered :ud.$ent declarin. the respondent as the sole o#ner of the propert1 and entitled to its possession, to the pre:udice of the latter6s siblin.s. Patentl1 then, the decision of the trial court is erroneous. Bnder Section +, Rule & of the Rules of !ourt, the respondent #as $andated to i$plead his siblin.s, bein. co) o#ners of the propert1, as parties. The respondent failed to co$pl1 #ith the rule. It $ust, li8e#ise, be stressed that the Republic of the Philippines is also an indispensable part1 as defendant because the respondent sou.ht the nullification of O!T No. P)(4;,' #hich #as issued based on Free Patent No. &3,'(-. Bnless the State is i$pleaded as part1)defendant, an1 decision of the !ourt #ould not be bindin. on it. It has been held that the absence of an indispensable part1 in a case renders ineffective all the proceedin.s subse9uent to the filin. of the co$plaint includin. the :ud.$ent. The absence of the respondent6s siblin.s, as parties, rendered all proceedin.s subse9uent to the filin. thereof, includin. the :ud.$ent of the court, ineffective for #ant of authorit1 to act, not onl1 as to the absent parties but even as to those present. &' In the instant case, it is not disputed that petitioner brou.ht the suit for unla#ful detainer in his na$e alone and for his o#n benefit to the e<clusion of the heirs of *raciana as he even e<ecuted an affidavit of self) ad:udication over the disputed propert1. It is clear therefore that petitioner cannot validl1 $aintain the instant action considerin. that he does not reco.niCe the co)o#nership that necessaril1 flo#s fro$ his theor1 of succession to the propert1 of his father, Do$inador.

In the sa$e vein, there is no $erit in petitioner6s clai$ that he has the le.al personalit1 to file the present unla#ful detainer suit because the e:ect$ent of respondents #ould benefit not onl1 hi$ but also his alle.ed co)o#ners. >o#ever, petitioner for.ets that he filed the instant case to ac9uire possession of the propert1 and to recover da$a.es. If .ranted, he alone #ill .ain possession of the lot and benefit fro$ the proceeds of the a#ard of da$a.es to the e<clusion of the heirs of *raciana. >ence, petitioner cannot successfull1 capitaliCe on the alle.ed benefit to his co)o#ners. Incidentall1, it should be pointed out that in default of the said heirs of *raciana, #ho$ petitioner labeled as Dfictitious heirs,D the State #ill inherit her share &( and #ill thus be petitioner6s co)o#ner entitled to possession and en:o1$ent of the propert1. The present controvers1 should be differentiated fro$ the cases #here the !ourt upheld the ri.ht of a co)o#ner to file a suit pursuant to "rticle ,3+ of the !ivil !ode. In Resuena v. Court of Appeals,&% and Sering v. Plazo,&& the co) o#ners #ho filed the e:ect$ent case did not represent the$selves as the e<clusive o#ner of the propert1. In Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and eresa Santiago ,&, the co$plaint for 9uietin. of title #as brou.ht in behalf of the co)o#ners precisel1 to recover lots o#ned in co$$on.&; Si$ilarl1 in !encilao v. Ca"arenta,&4 the a$ended co$plaint specified that the plaintiff is one of the heirs #ho co)o#ns the controverted properties. In the fore.oin. cases, the plaintiff never disputed the e<istence of a co)o#nership nor clai$ed to be the sole or e<clusive o#ner of the liti.ated lot. " favorable decision therein #ould of course inure to the benefit not onl1 of the plaintiff but to his co)o#ners as #ell. The instant case, ho#ever, presents an entirel1 different bac8drop as petitioner vi.orousl1 asserted absolute and sole o#nership of the 9uestioned lot. In his co$plaint, petitioner $ade the follo#in. alle.ations, to #it? &. The plaintiff #as the onl1 son /ille.iti$ate0 and )o,& %&(r of the late DOMIN"DOR "D7"@"N #ho died intestate on %3 Ma1 (-3+ #ithout an1 other descendant nor ascendant < < <. <<<< ;. 2ein. the onl1 childEdescendant and, therefore, )o,& %&(r of the deceased Do$inador "dla#an, $%& +,a(n$(## *&'a-& $%& a*)o,u$& o.n&r, and auto$aticall1 too8 POSS SSION, of the afore$entioned house and lot < < <. / $phasis added0&+ !learl1, the said cases find no application here because petitioner6s action operates as a co$plete repudiation of the e<istence of co)o#nership and not in representation or reco.nition thereof. Dis$issal of the co$plaint is therefore proper. "s noted b1 For$er Supre$e !ourt "ssociate 5ustice d.rado 7. Paras DFiGt is understood, of course, that the action Funder "rticle ,3+ of the !ivil !odeG is bein. instituted for all. >ence, if the co)o#ner e<pressl1 states that he is brin.in. the case onl1 for hi$self, the action should not be allo#ed to prosper.D &3 Indeed, respondents6 not less than four decade actual ph1sical possession of the 9uestioned ancestral house and lot deserves to be respected especiall1 so that petitioner failed to sho# that he has the re9uisite personalit1 and authorit1 as co)o#ner to file the instant case. 5ustice dictates that respondents #ho are no# in the t#ili.ht 1ears of their life be .ranted possession of their ancestral propert1 #here their parents and siblin.s lived durin. their lifeti$e, and #here the1, #ill probabl1 spend the re$ainin. da1s of their life. W/ERE0ORE, the petition is DENIED. The Septe$ber %&, %''& Decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in !")*.R. SP No. +,-%( #hich reinstated the Februar1 (%, %''% 5ud.$ent of the Municipal Trial !ourt of Min.lanilla, Metro !ebu, dis$issin. petitioner6s co$plaint in !ivil !ase No. &-%, and its 5anuar1 3, %'', Resolution, are A00IRMED. SO ORDERED. CONSUELO !NARES"SANTIAGO "ssociate 5ustice WE CONCUR? ARTEMIO 1. PANGANI2AN !hief 5ustice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA"MARTINE3 "ssociate 5ustice MINITA 1. C/ICO"NA3ARIO "ssociate 5ustice ! RTIFI!"TION

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. "sscociate 5ustice

Pursuant to Section (&, "rticle VIII of the !onstitution, it is hereb1 certified that the conclusions in the above Decision #ere reached in consultation before the case #as assi.ned to the #riter of the opinion of the !ourt6s Division. ARTEMIO 1. PANGANI2AN !hief 5ustice

0oo$no$&) Rollo, pp. &() ,&. Penned b1 "ssociate 5ustice Salvador 5. ValdeC, 5r., and concurred in b1 "ssociate 5ustices 5osefina *uevara)Salon.a and "rturo D. 2rion.
( %

#d. at 4()4;. Penned b1 5ud.e Si$eon P. Du$du$, 5r. #d. at ;-)4'. Penned b1 5ud.e *erardo . *estopa, 5r. #d. at ;+);3. #d. at +(. 2orn on "pril (', (-4+H Rollo, p. +%. RT! records, p. ('&. Doc8eted as !ivil !ase No. ! 2)%&%'; before the RT! of !ebu !it1, 2ranch ;H Rollo, pp. +&)3(. RT! records, p. (. !" rollo, p. (,.

&

('

Ori.inall1 covered b1 O!T No. &,-4 /See Deed of Sale of One Parcel of 7and, Rollo, p. +' and T!T No. 33,%, at Rollo, p. +(, #hich cancelled O!T No. &,-40.
(( (%

<cept for respondents, the other siblin.s are alread1 deceased. RT! records, pp. %' I 3')3(. Rollo, p. +'. RT! records, p. 3(. #d. Rollo, p. 4'.

(&

(,

(;

(4

(+

(3

#d. at 4;. #d. at -%. #d. at 3,)3-. #d. at -%. RT! records, p. &(,. Rollo, p. ,&. "rticle --3 of the !ivil !ode, provides? "RT. --3. If a #ido# or #ido#er survives #ith ille.iti$ate children, such #ido# or #ido#er shall be entitled to one)half of the inheritance, and the ille.iti$ate children or their descendants, #hether le.iti$ate or ille.iti$ate, to the other half.

(-

%'

%(

%%

%&

%,

%;

"rticle ('+3 of the !ivil !ode, states? "RT. ('+3. @here there are t#o or $ore heirs, the #hole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, o#ned in co$$on b1 such heirs, sub:ect to the pa1$ent of debts of the deceased.

%4

$e %uia v. Court of Appeals, *.R. No. (%'34,, October 3, %''&, ,(& S!R" ((,, (%;. Baloloy v. Hular, *.R. No (;++4+, Septe$ber -, %'',, ,&3 S!R" 3', -')-(. Tolentino, !ivil !ode of the Philippines, Vol. II, (-3& dition, p. (;+. Supra. #d. at -')-%. "rticle ('(( of the !ivil !ode reads? "rt. ('((. In default of persons entitled to succeed in accordance #ith the provisions of the precedin. Sections, the State shall inherit the #hole estate.

%+

%3

%-

&'

&(

&%

*.R. No. (%3&&3, March %3, %'';, ,;, S!R" ,%. *.R. No. 7),-+&(, Septe$ber %-, (-33, (44 S!R" 3,. *.R. No. (4(3(+, 5ul1 &', %'',, ,&; S!R" 4-'. #d. at 4-,. (,' Phil. --, ('()('%. RT! records, pp. ( I %. Paras, !ivil !ode of the Philippines "nnotated, Vol. II, (--- dition, p. %-,.

&&

&,

&;

&4

&+

&3