Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City

SPECIAL FORMER TWENTIETH DIVISION

NORMA A. ALBO, CA-G.R. SP NO. 09912

JOSE S. AYAG, and
VIVIANA A. ELUDO, Members:
Petitioners,
MAXINO, J., Chairperson
-versus- BORDIOS and
RIVAS-PALMONES,* JJ.
LYDIA VALDEZ AYAG,
ARMANDO RIZA, and
MANUELLA VALDEZ RIZA, Promulgated:
Respondents.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2021

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

RESOLUTION

MAXINO, J.:

Before this Court is a motion for reconsideration1 filed by petitioners

assailing this Court's Decision2 promulgated on September 20, 2019,
dismissing their petition for review. In said decision, this Court affirmed the
Decision3 dated January 5, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
51, Carmen, Bohol, in Civil Case No. 302 and its Order 4 dated

* The Decision promulgated on September 20, 2019 was penned by Mr. Justice Carlito B. Calpatura, as
ponente, concurred by Mme. Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Mme. Justice Emily R.
Aliño-Geluz, of the Twentieth Division.

Mme. Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and Mr. Justice Carlito B. Calpatura have since transferred to the
Manila station of this Court, and Mme. Justice Maxino is the only member left in the Cebu Station of
this Court. The current members of the Nineteenth Division, Mme. Justice Maxino, Mme. Justice
Lorenza Redulla Bordios and Mme. Justice Nancy C. Rivas-Palmones, shall compose the Special
Former Twentieth Division, which shall resolve the instant motion for reconsideration, in accordance
with Section 7(c), Rule VI of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.
1 Rollo, pp. 156-164.
2 Ibid, pp. 144-154.
3 Ibid, pp. 35-43.
4 Ibid, pp. 52-53.
CA-G.R. SP No. 09912 Page 2 of 5
Resolution

February 1, 2016. In turn, the RTC affirmed the Decision 5 dated February 2,
2015 of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Branch 7, Aicia-Mabini,
Bohol, in Civil Case No. MM-341, for unlawful detainer.

We deny petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

In their Motion for Reconsideration,6 petitioners argue that:

(1) respondents' main defense before the MCTC was not co-ownership; and
(2) respondents are not co-owners of the subject property.

Petitioners claim that it was not proper for the RTC to affirm the
MCTC's ruling that private respondents cannot be ejected from the subject
property because respondent Lydia is a co-owner of said property. They
allege that respondents' position, in their answer7 filed before the MCTC,
was that a portion of the subject property was sold to respondent Lydia's
brother. They posit that if respondent Lydia claims to be an heir, then why
would her brother need to buy a portion of the subject property.

We are not impressed. While petitioners quote in their motion for

reconsideration that part of respondents' answer, including a portion of
paragraph ten of said answer, pertaining to the sale of a portion of the
subject property to respondent Lydia's brother, petitioners conveniently omit
the rest of said paragraph, which shows that respondents also asserted in said
answer that respondent Lydia is a co-heir of the subject property. We quote,
in full, paragraph ten of respondents' answer:

10. That even before the sale of the property to the vendee, Jose
G. Valdez, in the year 1993, since defendant Lydia V. Ayag, was
already a Filipino Overseas Worker (OFW), and with more reason
that they (her husband HUGO AYAG, son of Spouses Placido Ayag
Sr. and Eduvehes S. Ayag) were living with their parents and they
were the ones responsible for their daily needs including food and
medicines and in order to give their parents a decent house, they
demolished the old house which was made of light materials
(bamboo and nipa) and they constructed a concrete house using the
money of defendant Lydia V. Ayag and besides it was the will of
the late Spouses Placido Ayag and Eduvehes Ayag that the house
and lot subject of this case will be given to Hugo Ayag and Lydia
5 Ibid, pp. 19-34.
6 Ibid, pp. 156-164.
7 Ibid, pp. 165-171.
CA-G.R. SP No. 09912 Page 3 of 5
Resolution

V. Ayag as their share since they were the ones who takes [sic]
care of them; (Boldface supplied)

Respondents' assertion that respondent Lydia is a co-heir of the

subject property becomes more prominent in the next paragraph of their
answer, viz:

11. The Plaintiffs were already married and were already living in
another house and in another place and they cannot now interpose
the allegation that they tolerated the defendants or by mere tolerance
in the possession of the house and lot because it was the will of
Spouses Placido Ayag and Eduvehes Ayag that defendant Lydia
Ayag and her late husband Hugo Ayag will be in the possession
of the house and lot as their share and defendant Lydia Ayag is
an heir of her late husband Hugo Ayag; (Underscoring in original;
Boldface supplied)

Thus, as this Court stated in Our decision, “there was nothing wrong
when the lower courts provisionally passed upon Lydia's status and right as
an heir and co-owner of the subject property considering that she put up as
her main defense the issue of co-ownership.”

Petitioners then argue that respondents are not co-owners of the

subject property, who may not be ejected from said property. They explain
that: (1) the subject property is an exclusive property of Hugo, respondent
Lydia's husband; and (2) respondents Armando and Manuella are not related
to petitioners. However, this Court has already held in Our decision that the
RTC did not err in affirming the MCTC's ruling that respondents cannot be
ejected from said property on the grounds that: (1) respondent Lydia is a co-
owner of the subject property on the ground that Hugo predeceased her; and
(2) respondents Manuella and Armando derived their rights from respondent
Lydia, to wit:

Admittedly, the crux of the present controversy hinges upon

whether the lower courts' adjudication on Lydia's right as an heir and
co-owner was proper.

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx Lydia's status as an heir to the subject

property is undisputed and already known to herein petitioners as
CA-G.R. SP No. 09912 Page 4 of 5
Resolution

can be inferred from the affidavit of petitioner Norma Albo xxx

xxx xxx

Evidently, the narration in Norma's affidavit clearly points to

the conclusion that being the wife of their late brother Hugo, Lydia,
by operation of law, is also a co-heir and therefore, a co-owner of the
disputed property.

xxx xxx xxx

Being a co-owner of the disputed property, the lower courts,

therefore, were correct in ruling that Lydia cannot be ousted from the
property. In the same vein, considering that Manuella and Armando
derived their right to occupy the subject property from Lydia, they
also cannot be forced to vacate the said premises by virtue of an
ejectment suit.

Petitioners then lament that, supposing respondent Lydia is a

co-owner of the subject property, what about their correlative rights to
possession as co-owners of said property. This Court already addressed
petitioners' lamentations when We cited the following principles regarding
co-ownership:

In a co-ownership, the undivided thing or right belong to

different persons, with each of them holding the property pro
indiviso and exercising his rights over the whole property. Each
co-owner may use and enjoy the property with no other limitation
than that he shall not injure the interests of the co-owners. The
underlying rationale is that until a division is actually made, the
respective share of each cannot be determined, and every co-owner
exercises, together with his co-participants, joint ownership of the
pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of it.

Besides, petitioners' second argument that respondents are not

co-owners is a mere rehash of that already raised in their petition for review.
We find it unnecessary to further dwell on their argument as We have
already considered, delved upon and discussed said argument in the decision
dismissing their petition for review.
CA-G.R. SP No. 09912 Page 5 of 5
Resolution

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners' motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

PAMELA ANN ABELLA MAXINO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

LORENZA REDULLA BORDIOS NANCY C. RIVAS-PALMONES

Associate Justice Associate Justice