Anda di halaman 1dari 15

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479 1/16/18, 13:01

VOL. 479, JANUARY 20, 2006 275


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

ARNELITO ADLAWAN, petitioner, vs. EMETERIO M.


ADLAWAN and NARCISA M. ADLAWAN, respondents.

Wills and Succession; Illegitimate Children; The death of the


father of an allegedly acknowledged illegitimate son did not make
said son the absolute owner of a parcel of land owned by the
decedent and his legal wife, and the subsequent death of the latter
did not make said illegitimate son the absolute owner of the lot
because the share of the deceased wife passed to her relatives by
consanguinity and not her husbandÊs illegitimate child with whom
she had no blood relations.·Petitioner averred that he is an
acknowledged illegitimate son and the sole heir of Dominador. He in
fact executed an affidavit adjudicating to himself the controverted
property. In ruling for the petitioner, the RTC held that the
questioned January 31, 1962 deed of sale validly transferred title to
Dominador and that petitioner is his acknowledged illegitimate son
who inherited ownership of the questioned lot. The Court notes,
however, that the RTC

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

276

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

Adlawan vs. Adlawan

lost sight of the fact that the theory of succession invoked by


petitioner would end up proving that he is not the sole owner of Lot
7226. This is so because Dominador was survived not only by
petitioner but also by his legal wife, Graciana, who died 10 years
after the demise of Dominador on May 28, 1987. By intestate
succession, Graciana and petitioner became co-owners of Lot 7226.
The death of Graciana on May 6, 1997, did not make petitioner the
absolute owner of Lot 7226 because the share of Graciana passed to
her relatives by consanguinity and not to petitioner with whom she
had no blood relations. The Court of Appeals thus correctly held
that petitioner has no authority to institute the instant action as
the sole owner of Lot 7226.
Actions; Parties; Ejectment; Co-Ownership; A co-owner may
bring such actions for recovery of possession without the necessity of
joining all of the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is
presumed to have been filed for the benefit of his co-owners; However,
if the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the
sole owner and entitled to the possession of the litigated property, the
action should be dismissed.·Petitioner contends that even granting
that he has co-owners over Lot 7226, he can on his own file the
instant case pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code which
provides: ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in
ejectment. This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of
possession. Article 487 includes forcible entry and unlawful
detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion
publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion). A
co-owner may bring such an action without the necessity of joining
all the other coowners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed
to have been filed to benefit his co-owners. It should be stressed,
however, that where the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone
who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the
litigated property, the action should be dismissed. The renowned
civilist, Professor Arturo M. Tolentino, explained·. . . A co-owner
may bring such an action, without the necessity of joining all the
other co-owners as coplaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be
instituted for the benefit of all. If the action is for the benefit of
the plaintiff alone, such that he claims possession for
himself and not for the coownership, the action will not
prosper.

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

VOL. 479, JANUARY 20, 2006 277

Adlawan vs. Adlawan

Wills and Succession; Intestate Succession; Escheat; In default


of the heirs of the decedent, the State will inherit the decedentÊs share
and will thus be a co-petitioner entitled to possession and enjoyment
of the property.·In the same vein, there is no merit in petitionerÊs
claim that he has the legal personality to file the present unlawful
detainer suit because the ejectment of respondents would benefit
not only him but also his alleged co-owners. However, petitioner
forgets that he filed the instant case to acquire possession of the
property and to recover damages. If granted, he alone will gain
possession of the lot and benefit from the proceeds of the award of
damages to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana. Hence, petitioner
cannot successfully capitalize on the alleged benefit to his co-
owners. Incidentally, it should be pointed out that in default of the
said heirs of Graciana, whom petitioner labeled as „fictitious heirs,‰
the State will inherit her share and will thus be petitionerÊs co-
owner entitled to possession and enjoyment of the property.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and


resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.


Florante L. Abad for petitioner.
Alo & Velasquez Law Offices for respondents.

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,

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 31-43. Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.,

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

and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and


Arturo D. Brion.
2 Id., at pp. 61-65. Penned by Judge Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr.
3 Id., at pp. 59-60. Penned by Judge Gerardo E. Gestopa, Jr.

278

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Adlawan vs. Adlawan

Metro Cebu, in Civil Case No. 392, dismissing petitioner


Arnelito AdlawanÊs unlawful detainer suit against
respondents Emeterio and Narcisa Adlawan. 4
Likewise
questioned is the January 8, 2004 Resolution of the Court
of Appeals which denied petitionerÊs motion for
reconsideration.
The instant ejectment suit stemmed from the partiesÊ
dispute over Lot 7226 and the house built5 thereon, covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8842, registered in the
name of the late Dominador Adlawan and located at Barrio
Lipata, Municipality of Minglanilla, Cebu. In his
complaint, petitioner
6
claimed that he is an acknowledged
illegitimate child of Dominador who died on May 28, 1987
without any other issue. Claiming to be the sole heir of
Dominador, he executed an affidavit adjudicating 7
to
himself Lot 7226 and the house built thereon. Out of
respect and generosity to respondents who are the siblings
of his father, he granted their plea to occupy the subject
property provided they would vacate the same should his
need for the property arise. Sometime in January 1999, he
verbally requested respondents to vacate the house and lot,
but they
8
refused and filed instead an action for quieting of
title with the RTC. Finally, upon respondentsÊ refusal to
heed the last demand letter to vacate dated August9 2, 2000,
petitioner filed the instant case on August 9, 2000.
On the other hand, respondents Narcisa
10
and Emeterio,
70 and 59 years of age, respectively, denied that they
begged petitioner to allow them to stay on the questioned
property and stressed that they have been occupying Lot
7226 and the house standing thereon since birth. They
alleged that Lot

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

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 57-58.


5 Id., at p. 71.
6 Born on April 10, 1967; Rollo, p. 72.
7 RTC Records, p. 103.
8 Docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-23205 before the RTC of Cebu City,
Branch 5; Rollo, pp. 73-81.
9 RTC Records, p. 1.
10 CA Rollo, p. 14.

279

VOL. 479, JANUARY 20, 2006 279


Adlawan vs. Adlawan

7226 was originally registered11 in the name of their


deceased father, Ramon Adlawan and the ancestral house
standing thereon was owned by Ramon and their 12
mother,
Oligia Mañacap Adlawan. The spouses had nine children
including the late Dominador and herein surviving
respondents Emeterio and Narcisa. During the lifetime of
their parents and deceased siblings, all of them lived on the
said property. Domi-nador and his wife, Graciana Ramas 13
Adlawan, who died without issue, also occupied the same.
Petitioner, on the other hand, is a stranger who never had
possession of Lot 7226.
Sometime in 1961, spouses Ramon and Oligia needed
money to finance the renovation of their house. Since they
were not qualified to obtain a loan, they transferred
ownership of Lot 7226 in the name of their son Dominador
who was the only one in the family who had a college
education.
14
By virtue of a January 31, 1962 simulated deed
of sale, a title was issued to Dominador which enabled
him to secure a loan with Lot 7226 as collateral.
Notwithstanding the execution of the simulated deed,
Dominador, then single, never disputed his parentsÊ
ownership of the lot. He and his wife, Graciana, did not
disturb respondentsÊ possession of the property until they
died on May 28, 1987 and May 6, 1997, respectively.
Respondents also contended that DominadorÊs signature
at the back of petitionerÊs birth certificate was forged,

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

hence, the latter is not an heir of Dominador


15
and has no
right to claim ownership of Lot 7226. They argued that
even if petitioner is indeed DominadorÊs acknowledged
illegitimate son, his right

_______________

11 Originally covered by OCT No. 3496 (See Deed of Sale, Rollo, p. 70


and TCT No. 8842, at Rollo, p. 71, which cancelled OCT No. 3496).
12 Except for respondents, the other siblings are already deceased.
13 RTC Records, pp. 20 & 80-81.
14 Rollo, p. 70.
15 RTC Records, p. 81.

280

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Adlawan vs. Adlawan

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:

„In view of the foregoing, for failure to prove by preponderance of


evidence, the plaintiff Ês cause of action, the above-entitled case is
hereby Ordered DISMISSED.
17
SO ORDERED.‰

On appeal by petitioner, the RTC reversed the decision of


the MTC holding that the title of Dominador over Lot 7226
cannot be collaterally attacked. It thus ordered respondents
to turn over possession of the controverted lot to petitioner
and to pay compensation for the use and occupation of the
premises. The decretal portion thereof, provides:

„Wherefore, the Judgment, dated February 12, 2002, of the

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

Municipal Trial Court of Minglanilla, Cebu, in Civil Case No. 392, is


reversed. Defendants-appellees are directed to restore to plaintiff-
appellant possession of Lot 7226 and the house thereon, and to pay
plaintiff-appellant, beginning in August 2000, compensation for
their use and occupation of the property in the amount of P500.00 a
month.
18
So ordered.‰

_______________

16 Id.
17 Rollo, p. 60.
18 Id., at p. 65.

281

VOL. 479, JANUARY 20, 2006 281


Adlawan vs. Adlawan

Meanwhile, the RTC granted 19


petitionerÊs motion for
execution pending appeal which was opposed by the
alleged nephew and nieces of Graciana in their motion for 20
leave to intervene and to file an answer in intervention.
They contended that as heirs of Graciana, they have a
share in Lot 7226 and that intervention is necessary to
protect their right over the property. In addition, they
declared that as co-owners of the property, they are
allowing respondents to stay in Lot 7226 until a formal
partition of the property is made. 21
The RTC denied the motion for leave to intervene. It,
however, recalled the order granting the execution pending
appeal having lost jurisdiction over the case in view of22the
petition filed by respondents with the Court of Appeals.
On September 23, 2003, the Court of Appeals set aside
the decision of the RTC and reinstated the judgment of the
MTC. It ratiocinated that petitioner and the heirs of
Graciana are co-owners of Lot 7226. As such, petitioner
cannot eject respondents from the property via an unlawful
detainer suit filed in his own name and as the sole owner of
the property. Thus·

„WHEEFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated

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

September 13, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City,


Branch 7, in Civil Case No. CEB-27806 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE, and the Judgment dated February 12, 2002 of the
Municipal Trial Court of Minglanilla, Metro Cebu, in Civil Case No.
392 is REINSTATED. Costs against the respondent.
23
SO ORDERED.‰

PetitionerÊs motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence,


the instant petition.

_______________

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

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Adlawan vs. Adlawan

The decisive issue to be resolved is whether or not


petitioner can validly maintain the instant case for
ejectment.
Petitioner averred that he is an acknowledged
illegitimate son and the sole heir of Dominador. He in fact
executed an affidavit adjudicating to himself the
controverted property. In ruling for the petitioner, the RTC
held that the questioned January 31, 1962 deed of sale
validly transferred title to Dominador and that petitioner is
his acknowledged illegitimate son who inherited ownership
of the questioned lot. The Court notes, however, that the
RTC lost sight of the fact that the theory of succession
invoked by petitioner would end up proving that he is not
the sole owner of Lot 7226. This is so because Dominador
was survived not only by petitioner but also by his legal
wife, Graciana, who died 10 24years after the demise of
Dominador on May 28, 1987. By intestate succession, 25
Graciana and petitioner became co-owners of Lot 7226.
The death of Graciana on May 6, 1997, did not make

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

petitioner the absolute owner of Lot 7226 because the share


of Graciana passed to her relatives by consanguinity and
not to petitioner with whom she had no blood relations. The
Court of Appeals thus correctly held that petitioner has no
authority to institute the instant action as the sole owner of
Lot 7226.
Petitioner contends that even granting that he has co-
owners over Lot 7226, he can on his own file the instant
case pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code which
provides:

_______________

24 Article 998 of the Civil Code, provides:

ART. 998. If a widow or widower survives with illegitimate children, such


widow or widower shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the
illegitimate children or their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, to
the other half.

25 Article 1078 of the Civil Code, states:

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

VOL. 479, JANUARY 20, 2006 283


Adlawan vs. Adlawan

„ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in


ejectment.‰

This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of


possession. Article 487 includes forcible entry and unlawful
detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion
publiciana), and 26
recovery of ownership (accion de
reivindicacion). 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 presumed to have been filed
to benefit his coowners. It should be stressed, however, that
where the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who

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

claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession


27
of
the litigated property, the action should be dismissed.
The renowned civilist, Professor Arturo M. Tolentino,
explained·

„. . . 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. If the action is for
the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that he claims
possession for himself and not for the co-ownership, the
28
action will not prosper.‰ (Emphasis added)
29
In Baloloy v. Hular, respondent filed a complaint for
quieting of title claiming exclusive ownership of the
property, but the evidence showed that respondent has co-
owners over the property. In dismissing the complaint for
want of respondentÊs authority to file the case, the Court
held that·

_______________

26 De Guia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120864, October 8, 2003, 413


SCRA 114, 125.
27 Baloloy v. Hular, G.R. No 157767, September 9, 2004, 438 SCRA 80,
90-91.
28 Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1983 Edition, p. 157.
29 Supra.

284

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Adlawan vs. Adlawan

„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.‰

_______________

30 Id., at pp. 90-92.

285

VOL. 479, JANUARY 20, 2006 285


Adlawan vs. Adlawan

In the instant case, it is not disputed that petitioner


brought the suit for unlawful detainer in his name alone
and for his own benefit to the exclusion of the heirs of
Graciana as he even executed an affidavit of self-
adjudication over the disputed property. It is clear

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

therefore that petitioner cannot validly maintain the


instant action considering that he does not recognize the
co-ownership that necessarily flows from his theory of
succession to the property of his father, Dominador.
In the same vein, there is no merit in petitionerÊs claim
that he has the legal personality to file the present
unlawful detainer suit because the ejectment of
respondents would benefit not only him but also his alleged
co-owners. However, petitioner forgets that he filed the
instant case to acquire possession of the property and to
recover damages. If granted, he alone will gain possession
of the lot and benefit from the proceeds of the award of
damages to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana. Hence,
petitioner cannot successfully capitalize on the alleged
benefit to his co-owners. Incidentally, it should be pointed
out that in default of the said heirs of Graciana, whom
petitioner31labeled as „fictitious heirs,‰ the State will inherit
her share and will thus be petitionerÊs co-owner entitled
to possession and enjoyment of the property.
The present controversy should be differentiated from
the cases where the Court upheld the right of a co-owner to
file a suit pursuant to Article 32
487 of the Civil Code.
33
In
Resuena v. Court of Appeals, and Sering v. Plazo, the co-
owners who filed the ejectment case did not represent
themselves as the exclusive owner of the property. 34
In
Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago, the
complaint for quieting of title was

_______________

31 Article 1011 of the Civil Code reads:

Art. 1011. In default of persons entitled to succeed in accordance with the


provisions of the preceding Sections, the State shall inherit the whole estate.

32 G.R. No. 128338, March 28, 2005, 454 SCRA 42.


33 G.R. No. L-49731, September 29, 1988, 166 SCRA 84.
34 G.R. No. 161817, July 30, 2004, 435 SCRA 690.

286

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Adlawan vs. Adlawan

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)‰

Clearly, the said cases find no application here because


petitionerÊs action operates as a complete repudiation of the
existence of co-ownership and not in representation or
recognition thereof. Dismissal of the complaint is therefore
proper. As noted by Former Supreme Court Associate
Justice Edgardo L. Paras „[i]t is understood, of course, that
the action [under Article 487 of the Civil Code] is being
instituted for all. Hence, if the co-owner expressly states
that he is bringing the case only 38
for himself, the action
should not be allowed to prosper.‰

_______________

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

VOL. 479, JANUARY 20, 2006 287


Adlawan vs. Adlawan

Indeed, respondentsÊ not less than four decade actual


physical possession of the questioned ancestral house and
lot deserves to be respected especially so that petitioner
failed to show that he has the requisite personality and
authority as co-owner to file the instant case. Justice
dictates that respondents who are now in the twilight years
of their life be granted possession of their ancestral
property where their parents and siblings lived during
their lifetime, and where they, will probably spend the
remaining days of their life.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September
23, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 74921 which reinstated the February 12, 2002
Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of Minglanilla,
Metro Cebu, dismissing petitionerÊs complaint in Civil Case
No. 392, and its January 8, 2004 Resolution, are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Austria-Martinez,


Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.·A will is essentially ambulatory·at any time


prior to the testatorÊs death, it may be changed or revoked,
and until admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever
and no right can be claimed thereunder. An ownerÊs
intention to confer title in the future to persons possessing
property by his tolerance is not inconsistent with the
formerÊs taking back possession in the meantime for any
reason deemed sufficient. (Cañiza vs. Court of Appeals, 268
SCRA 640 [1997])
The possibility of a false document being adjudged as
the will of the testator cannot be eliminated, which is why
if the holographic will is contested, the law requires three
witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of

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

the deceased. (Codoy vs. Calugay, 312 SCRA 333 [1999])

··o0o··

288

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd56d52385126972003600fb002c009e/p/ANY442/?username=Guest Page 15 of 15

Anda mungkin juga menyukai