_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
276
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 1 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 2 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
277
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Assailed in this
1
petition for review is the September 23,
2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 2
74921 which set aside the September 13, 2002 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 7, in
Civil Case No. CEB-27806,
3
and reinstated the February 12,
2002 Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Minglanilla,
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 3 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
278
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 4 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
_______________
279
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 5 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
_______________
280
to succeed is doubtful
16
because Dominador was survived by
his wife, Graciana.
On February 12, 2002, the MTC dismissed the complaint
holding that the establishment of petitionerÊs filiation and
the settlement of the estate of Dominador are conditions
precedent to the accrual of petitionerÊs action for ejectment.
It added that since Dominador was survived by his wife,
Graciana, who died 10 years thereafter, her legal heirs are
also entitled to their share in Lot 7226. The dispositive
portion thereof, reads:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 6 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
_______________
16 Id.
17 Rollo, p. 60.
18 Id., at p. 65.
281
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 7 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
_______________
19 Id., at p. 92.
20 Id., at pp. 84-89.
21 Id., at p. 92.
22 RTC Records, p. 314.
23 Rollo, p. 43.
282
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 8 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
_______________
ART. 1078. Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent
is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment
of debts of the deceased.
283
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 9 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
_______________
284
„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. A co-owner may bring such an action without
the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs
because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. Any
judgment of the court in favor of the co-owner will benefit the others
but if such judgment is adverse, the same cannot prejudice the
rights of the unimpleaded co-owners. If the action is for the benefit
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 10 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
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.
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. The trial court rendered judgment
declaring the respondent as the sole owner of the property and
entitled to its possession, to the prejudice of the latterÊs siblings.
Patently then, the decision of the trial court is erroneous. Under
Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the respondent was
mandated to implead his siblings, being co-owners of the property,
as parties. The respondent failed to comply with the rule. It must,
likewise, be stressed that the Republic of the Philippines is also an
indispensable party as defendant because the respondent sought
the nullification of OCT No. P-16540 which was issued based on
Free Patent No. 384019. Unless the State is impleaded as party-
defendant, any decision of the Court would not be binding on it. It
has been held that the absence of an indispensable party in a case
renders ineffective all the proceedings subsequent to the filing of
the complaint including the judgment. The absence of the
respondentÊs siblings, as parties, rendered all proceedings
subsequent to the filing thereof, including the judgment of the
court, ineffective for want of authority to act, not only as to the
30
absent parties but even as to those present.‰
_______________
285
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 11 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
_______________
286
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 12 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
brought in behalf of
35
the co-owners precisely to recover lots
owned
36
in common. Similarly in Vencilao v. Camarenta, et
al., the amended complaint specified that the plaintiff is
one of the heirs who co-owns the controverted properties.
In the foregoing cases, the plaintiff never disputed the
existence of a co-ownership nor claimed to be the sole or
exclusive owner of the litigated lot. A favorable decision
therein would of course inure to the benefit not only of the
plaintiff but to his co-owners as well. The instant case,
however, presents an entirely different backdrop as
petitioner vigorously asserted absolute and sole ownership
of the questioned lot. In his complaint, petitioner made the
following allegations, to wit:
„3. The plaintiff was the only son (illegitimate) and sole heir of the
late DOMINADOR ADLAWAN who died intestate on 28 May 1987
without any other descendant nor ascendant x x x.
xxxx
5. Being the only child/descendant and, therefore, sole heir of
the deceased Dominador Adlawan, the plaintiff became the
absolute owner, and automatically took POSSESSION, of the
37
aforementioned house and lot x x x. (Emphasis added)‰
_______________
35 Id., at p. 694.
36 140 Phil. 99, 101-102; 29 SCRA 473, 476.
37 RTC Records, pp. 1 & 2.
38 Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. II, 1999 Edition,
p. 294.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 13 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
287
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 14 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01
··o0o··
288
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 15 of 15