CASE DIGEST: Baloloy v Hular

(Note: This case have several issues but only the

issue about co-ownership was presented in this Respondent Alfredo Hular filed a complaint for quieting
digest) of title of real property against the children and heirs of
Iluminado Baloloy, namely, Anacorita, Antonio, and
petitioners Reynaldo and Adelina, all surnamed Baloloy.
He prayed among others that he be declared the
FACTS: Spouses Lino and Victoriana Estopin were the
absolute owner of the property in question.
original owners of a parcel of land located in Barangay
Biriran, Juban, Sorsogon ( Lot No. 3347 ) of the Juban
Cadastre. A major portion of the property was
agricultural, while the rest was residential. November 11 ISSUE: Whether all the indispensable parties had been
and 25, 1961: When Lino Estopin died intestate, his impleaded by the respondent in the trial court (NO)
widow, Victoriana Lagata, executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale on over the agricultural portion of Lot No. 3347, (
15,906 sqm) and the residential portion of the property
RULING: Respondent adduced evidence that when his
(287 sqm) to Astrologo Hular. In 1961 or thereabouts:
parents died intestate, they were survived by their
Iluminado asked Hulars permission to construct a house
children, the respondent and his siblings Elena, Jose,
on a portion of Lot No. 3347 near the road, and the latter
Romeo, Anacleto, Leo, and Teresita.
agreed.

Article 1078 of the Civil Code provides that where there

Iluminado Baloloy in 1945 acquired a coconut land
(north of the residential portion of Lot 3347 Lot No. 3353
(9302 sqm) and registered the same. Iluminado
constructed his house on a portion of Lot No. 3353. He
and his family, including his children, forthwith resided in
said house.
In 1979, respondent Hular had his house constructed
near the trail (road) on Lot No. 3347, which, however,
occupied a big portion of Lot No. 3353.
are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent
is, before partition, owned in common by such heirs,
subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased.
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. 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.

Iluminado died intestate on November 29, 1985. His

widow and their children continued residing in the
property, while petitioner Reynaldo Baloloy, one of
Iluminados children, later constructed his house near
that of his deceased father. When Astrologo died, he
was survived by his children, Jose, Romeo, Anacleto,
Elena, Leo, Teresita, and the respondent, among others,
who continued to reside in their house.
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.

Sometime in l991 the respondent had Lot No. 3353

surveyed and discovered that the residential area
deeded by Lagata to Astrologo Hular had an area of
1,405 square meters, instead of 287 square meters only.

Page 1 of 3
ADLAWAN V. ADLAWAN- Co-ownership & Ejectment
A co-owner by virtue of Art. 487 is allowed to bring an
action without necessity of including all the co-owners as
plaintiffs for it is presumed to be for the benefit of all BUT
if the action of the plaintiff alone, the action should be
dismissed.
FACTS:
A house and lot (lot 7226) was registered in the name of
Dominador Adlawan, the father of (petitioner) Arnelito
Adlawan. He is the acknowledged illegitimate child of
Dominador who is claiming that he is the sole heir. He
then adjudicated to himself the said house and lot to
himself and out of generosity allowed the siblings of his
father to occupy the property provided that they vacate
when asked. Time came when he demanded that they
vacate and when they refused he filed an ejectment suit
against them.
His aunt and uncle on the other hand, Narcisa (70) and
Emeterio (59) denied his allegations claiming that the
said lot was registered in their parents name and they
had been living in the said house and lot since birth. The
only reason why the said house and lot was transferred
in Dominadors name was when their parents were in
need of money for renovating their house, their parents
were not qualified to obtain a loan and since Dominador
was the only one who had a college education, they
executed a simulated deed of sale in favor of
Dominador.
The MTC dismissed the complaint holding that Arnelitos
filiation and the settlement of the estate are conditions
precedent for the accrual of the suit. And since
Dominador was survived by his wife, Graciana, her legal
heirs are entitled to their share in the lot. The RTC
ordered Narcisa and Emeterio to turn over the
possession of the lot to Arnelito. It also granted the
motion of execution which was opposed by the nephew
and nieces of Graciana who claim that they have a share
in the lot.
The CA reinstated the decision of the MTC holding that
Arnelito and the heirs of Graciana are co-heirs thus he
cannot eject them from the property via unlawful
detainer. Thus the case at bar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Arnelito can validly maintain the
ejectment suit
HELD:
NO. The theory of succession invoked by Arnelito would
prove that he is not the sole heir of Dominador. Since he
was survived was his wife, upon his death, Arnelito and
Graciana became co-owners of the lot. Upon her death,
her share passed on to her relatives by consanguinity
thus making them co-owners as well.
Petitioner contends that Art. 487 allows him to file the
instant petition. (Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may
bring an action in ejectment.) It is true that a co-owner
may bring such an action w/o necessity of joining all the
co-owners as plaintiffs because it is presumed to be
instituted for the benefit of all BUT if the action is for the
benefit of the plaintiff alone, the action should be
dismissed.
Since petitioner brought the suit in his name and for his
benefit alone and his repudiation of the ownership of the
other heirs, the instant petition should be dismissed.
IGLESIA NI CRISTO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. THELMA A. PONFERRADA, in her capacity as
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Br. 104, Quezon
City, and HEIRS OF ENRIQUE G. SANTOS,
Plaintiffs alleged therein that, during his lifetime, Enrique
Santos was the owner of a parcel of land
He had been in possession of the owners duplicate of
said title and had been in continuous, open, adverse and
peaceful possession of the property.
He died and was survived by his wife, Alicia Santos, and
other plaintiffs, who were their children.
plaintiffs took peaceful and adverse possession of the
property, and of the owners duplicate of said title.
When the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City
was burned on June 11, 1988, the original copy of said
title was burned as well. The Register of Deeds had the
title reconstituted as TCT No. RT-110323, based on the
owners duplicate of TCT No.
plaintiffs learned that defendant was claiming ownership
over the property based on TCT No. 321744 issued on
September 18, 1984 which, on its face, cancelled TCT
No. 320898, under the name of the Philippine National
Bank, which allegedly cancelled TCT No. 252070 in the
Page 2 of 3
names of the spouses Marcos and Romana dela Cruz.
They insisted that TCT Nos. 321744, 320898 and
252070 were not among the titles issued by the Register
of Deeds of Quezon City and even if the Register of
Deeds issued said titles, it was contrary to law. Enrique
Santos, during his lifetime, and his heirs, after his death,
never encumbered or disposed the property. In 1996,
plaintiffs had the property fenced but defendant deprived
them of the final use and enjoyment of their property.
As gleaned from the caption of the complaint, plaintiffs
appear to be the heirs of Enrique Santos, represented by
Enrique G. Santos. The latter signed the Verification and
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
CONTENTION OF DEFENDANT:
Defendant asserted that the case involved more than
one plaintiff but the verification and certification against
forum shopping incorporated in the complaint was
signed only by Enrique Santos. Although the complaint
alleges that plaintiffs are represented by Enrique Santos,
there is no showing that he was, indeed, authorized to
so represent the other plaintiffs to file the complaint and
to sign the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping
Hence, the RTC correctly denied the motion to dismiss
filed by petitioner.
Anent the issue of the authority of Enrique G. Santos to
represent his co-heirs/co-plaintiffs, we find no necessity
to show such authority. Respondents herein are co-
owners of the subject property. As such co-owners, each
of the heirs may properly bring an action for ejectment,
forcible entry and detainer, 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.32
We uphold the validity of the complaint because of the
following circumstances: (1) the caption of the instant
case is Heirs of Enrique Santos v. Iglesia ni Cristo;33 (2)
the opening statement of the complaint states that
plaintiffs are the heirs of Enrique Santos and likewise
names the particular heirs of the latter who instituted the
complaint below;34 (3) the case involves a property
owned by the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs
therein;35 and (4) the verification signed by Enrique G.
Santos clearly states that he is one of the children of the
late Enrique Santos and that he represents the heirs of
said Enrique Santos

RULING:

Applying the doctrines laid down in the above cases, we

find and so hold that the CA did not err in affirming the
application of the rule on substantial compliance. In the
instant case, the property involved is a 936-square-
meter real property. Both parties have their respective
TCTs over the property. Respondents herein who are
plaintiffs in the case below have a common interest over
the property being the heirs of the late Enrique Santos,
the alleged registered owner of the subject property as
shown in one of the TCTs. As such heirs, they are
considered co-owners pro indiviso of the whole property
since no specific portion yet has been adjudicated to any
of the heirs. Consequently, as one of the heirs and
principal party, the lone signature of Enrique G. Santos
in the verification and certification is sufficient for the
RTC to take cognizance of the case. The commonality of
their interest gave Enrique G. Santos the authority to
inform the RTC on behalf of the other plaintiffs therein
that they have not commenced any action or claim
involving the same issues in another court or tribunal,
and that there is no other pending action or claim in
another court or tribunal involving the same issues.

Page 3 of 3