You are on page 1of 1

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 Dominador’s 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 Arnelito’s 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.