CASE DIGEST: CASES FOR CO-OWNERSHIP

JOHN CYRILPAGATPAT

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.

CORONEL v. CONSTANTINO- Sale of an Undivided Interest of a Property

Sale of an undivided interest of a property only binds the co-owner only up to the portion of his/her
interest; consequently he/she can only transfer ownership over the same to other parties.

FACTS:
The disputed property was originally owned by Honoria Aguinaldo. One half was inherited by Emilia
Coronel together with her sons Benjamin, Catalino and Cerefino, all surnamed Coronel. The other
half was inherited by Florentino Constantino and Aurea Buensuceso. Emilia sold her share of the lot
to Jess C Santos and Priscilla Bernardo as evidenced by the “KASULATAN NG BILIHANG
PATULUYAN.” Santos and Bernardo then sold it to the respondents. Petitioners built several
constructions and improvements on the disputed lot. Respondents then filed a complaint for
declaration of ownership, quieting of title and damages with prayer for writ of mandatory and/or
prohibitory injunction with the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale was valid? If yes, up to what extent?

RULING:
YES, only up to ¼ share of the land inherited by Emilia and her sons. Emilia signed only in her behalf
and not in representation of her three children thus the sale is only binding to her share. The subject
property was co-owned, pro-indiviso by petitioner Emilia together with her petitioner sons. No proof
was presented to show that the co-ownership that existed among the heirs of Ceferino and Catalino
and herein petitioners as never been terminated. No evidence was presented to show that the three
brothers were aware of the sale made by their mother. Since there was no partition made, Emilia is
deemed to have sold only her share of the lot which is ¼ thereof. Consequently SC declared
respondents as owner of ½ undivided portion of the original lot which they inherited plus ¼ share (of
their ½) of petitioner Emilia Coronel.

AGUILAR v. CA- Co-ownership

Any of the Co-owners may demand the sale of the house and lot at any time and the other cannot
object to such demand; thereafter the proceeds of the sale shall be divided equally according to
their respective interests.

FACTS:
Petitioner Vergilio and respondent Senen bought a house and lot in Para ňaque where their father
could spend and enjoy his remaining years in a peaceful neighborhood. They initially agreed that
Vergilio will get 2/3 and Senen will get 1/3; but later they agreed on equal shares. Senen was left in
the said lot to take care of their father since Vergilio’s family was in Cebu. After their father’s death
petitioner demanded from private respondent that the latter vacate the house and that the property
be sold and proceeds thereof divided among them but the latter refused. Petitioner then filed to
compel the sale of the property. The chunk of the issue tackled by the courts was regarding the pre-
trial. Respondent filed a motion to cancel Pre-trial since the counsel had to accompany his wife in
Dumaguete City where she would be a principal sponsor in a wedding. CFI denied the motion; and
the pre-trial proceeded on the scheduled date. The respondents did not appear thus they were
declared in default. The trial went on ex parte without the respondent and held that the property
should be sold to a third party and that the proceeds be distributed to the parties; in addition
respondent was made to pay rent from the time the action was filed. Respondents appealed this and
the decision was reversed by the CA saying that the TC erred in declaring respondents in default; the
case was then remanded to the trial court. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE:
A) W/N CA erred (1) in holding that the motion of respondent through counsel to cancel the pre-trial
was dilatory in character and (2) in remanding the case to the trial court for pre-trial and trial?
ISSUE RELEVANT TO PROPERTY:
B) W/N trial court was correct with regards to the sale and rent?

RULING:
A) YES, CA erred in granting the respondents motion and remanding the case. The law is clear that
the appearance of parties at the pretrial is mandatory. A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial
conference may be non-suited or considered as in default. It is the discretion of the court to grant
the motion if it sees that the reason for the cancelation of the same would be reasonable. SC found
that the reason for the cancelation of the pre-trial was insufficient and that the trial court was not in
grave abuse of discretion when they denied it.
B) YES, with a few modification. Petitioner and respondents are co-owners of subject house and lot
in equal shares; either one of them may demand the sale of the house and lot at any time and the
other cannot object to such demand; thereafter the proceeds of the sale shall be divided equally
according to their respective interests.
BASIS: Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-
ownership, and that each co-owner may demand at any time partition of the thing owned in common
insofar as his share is concerned. Corollary to this rule, Art. 498 of the Code states that whenever
the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them
who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds accordingly distributed.

SC held that ½ of the proceeds should go to the petitioner and the remainder to the respondent
(1,200 each.) Also rent was awarded 1,200 pesos per month with legal interest from the time the
trial court ordered the respondent to vacate, for the use and enjoyment of the other half of the
property.
BASIS: When petitioner filed an action to compel the sale of the property and the trial court granted
the petition and ordered the ejectment of respondent, the co-ownership was deemed terminated and
the right to enjoy the possession jointly also ceased.

CRUZ v LEIS- Redemption and Co-ownership

Redemption by a co-owner doesn't terminate the co-ownership nor give her title to the whole
property subject of the co-ownership

FACTS:
Leis and Isidro married each other in 1923. Isidro subsequently acquired from the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources a parcel of land, which was titled in her name, with the
description that she was a “widow”. Leis only passed away in 1973 without executing a will.

Isidro then secured a loan from Cruz (PhP 15,000, with 5% interest) secured by a mortgage on the
land from DANR, but failed to pay on due date. Isidro executed 2 contracts in favor of Cruz: an Deed
of Absolute Sale and a Contract indicating a pacto de retro sale. Isidro still failed to repurchase the
property within 1 year, so she consolidated the ownership of the land in favor of Cruz.

When Isidro died, Cruz demanded her heirs to vacate the premises. The heirs then filed a complaint
with the RTC averring that the land was conjugal property having been purchased during their
marriage. The RTC found in favor of the heirs. The case was appealed to the CA, but the CA merely
affirmed the ruling because Cruz failed to get a judicial order to have the land consolidated in his
name after failure of Isidro to comply with the requirements of the right to repurchase (Art. 1607).

ISSUE:
Whether or not the land in question is conjugal property, and therefore subject to the rules on co-
ownership?

HELD:
Although the land was purchased during the marriage, upon Leis’ death, the conjugal property
regime ceased, and gave Isidro an equal portion of Leis’ half of the property to be divided among his
legitimes. Co-ownership of the land then began.However, upon failure of Isidro the heirs to exercise
the right to repurchase, the ownership of the land transferred to Cruz. Despite the TCT being void for
non-compliance with 1607, the ownership did not transfer back to the heirs, for compliance with
1607 is merely for purposes of registering the title in the Torrens System.