Adlawan vs.

Adlawan
G.R. No. 161916
January 20, 2006

P.S. Some important shit are supplied with emphasis.

Facts:

An ejectment was filed by Petitioner Arnelito Adlawan against Respondents Narcisa and
Emeterio Adlawan. The subject lot and ancestral house of this case is located in Minglanilla, Cebu which
is covered by TCT 8842 registered in the name of the late Dominador Adlawan. The petitioner claims to
be an illegitimate son of the Dominador while the respondents are the latter’s siblings.

When Domindor died, intestate, petitioner executed an affidavit adjudicating to himself the
subject lot claiming as the sole surviving heir of Dominador. In the same way, he claimed to be the sole
heir of Dominador in the complaint he filed for ejectment. In the complaint, petitioner said that he only
tolerated the physical possession and occupation of the respondents being his father’s siblings and
agreed that should Petitioner use the land and the house, they should vacate upon demand. Petitioner
eventually demanded for the Respondents to vacate but refused to. Hence, the ejectment complaint
was filed.

While RTC decided the case in favor of Petitioner, Respondents appealed before CA and some
nephew and nieces of Graciana, who are her surviving heirs, intervened in the case. In addition, the
intervenors declared that, as co-owners of the subject property, they are allowing the respondents to
possess and occupy the same until formal partition is properly made.

Who is Graciana? She is Dominador’s wife but she is not the mother of the petitioner, okay?
Petitioner is an illegitimate child of Dominador. Graciana died 10 years after Dominador’s death. Hence,
this fact disproves petitioner’s claim that he is Dominador’s sole heir and definitely not the sole owner
of the subject lot.

Relevant Issue:

Can Petitioner validly maintain the case for ejectment despite the fact the he is just a mere co-
owner of the subject lot?

Ruling:

No, petitioner cannot validly maintain the case for ejectment.

Apparently, petitioner is just a co-owner of the property. When Dominador died, Graciana and
Petitioner became co-owners of the property. When Graciana died 10 years later, petitioner did not
become the absolute owner of the property. Instead, Graciana’s part as co-owner was passed to her
relatives, nephew and nieces included, by intestate succession. Hence, the co-owners of the property
now are petitioner and the nephew and nieces of Graciana.
 Although Article 487 allows any one of the co-owners to bring an action in ejectment, it should
be stressed that where the suit is for the benefit of the petitioner alone who claims to be the sole
owner and entitled to the possession of the litigated property, the action should be dismissed.