Heirs of Albina G. Ampil v.
Manahan  On 12 December 2002, the petitioners sent a demand letter to the respondents to
Ownership / Co-Ownership / Special Rules: Co-Ownership | 11 October 2012 | Mendoza, J.
Nature of Case: Certiorari (Review of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals)
Digest Maker: Ignacio, MKC
SUMMARY:
The case involved 2 lots (‘property’) owned by Albina G. Ampil (‘Albina’) which she
allowed to be occupied by Perfecto Manahan (‘Perfecto’) and his family. After Albina’s
death, her heirs requested Perfecto and his family to vacate the property. However, the
latter refused. After the parties’ failure to amicably settle, the petitioners filed an
Unlawful Detainer against the respondents.
The MTC and the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. However, the CA reversed the
decisions of the lower courts. Thus, the petitioners, represented by Exequiel G. Ampil, 1
of their co-heirs, filed the instant petition for review.
The Court reinstated the decisions of the MTC and the RTC holding that the occupation of
the property by the respondents was by mere tolerance.
On the important issue under the syllabus, it must be noted that Art. 487, NCC provides
that anyone of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment.
DOCTRINE:
Art. 487, NCC provides that anyone of the co-owners may bring an action for
ejectment without joining the others. The action is not limited to ejectment cases but
includes all kinds of suits for recovery of possession because the suit is presumed to
have been instituted for the benefit of all.
A co-owner is not even a necessary party to an action for ejectment, for complete
relief could be afforded even in his absence.
Ownership over the land cannot be acquired by mere occupation.
While it is true that tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they,
nevertheless, constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.
It strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
FACTS:
 The property involved consisted of 2 lots owned by Albina. The lots were located in
Barangay Sto. Niño, Paombong, Bulacan. The area of 1 of the lots, Lot 186, used to
be 75 sq. m. until it was reduced to 16 sq. m. due to road widening projects. The area
of the other lot, Lot 742, was 382 sq. m.
 In 1982, 1 of the petitioners verbally demanded that the respondents vacate the
property. When the latter refused, a complaint was filed against them before
the Barangay Lupon.
 From the minutes of the meeting in the Barangay Lupon, Perfecto admitted that
Albina allowed them temporary use of the lots since they could not leave the
premises because they had nowhere else to go.
 When the parties failed to amicably settle, the petitioners filed a case against
Perfecto before the RTC for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law. In the said case,
Perfecto executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 25 May 1983 wherein he admitted
that the property belonged to Albina. The RTC dismissed the criminal charge
holding that Perfecto’s stay in the property was lawful since Albina permitted them
to use the property on the condition that they would vacate it should Albina need it.
 After the death of Albina in 1986, her heirs, represented by Exequiel, requested
Perfecto and his family to vacate the property. However, the latter refused.
 When the matter was brought before the Lupong Tagapamayapa, the parties failed
to settle amicably.
surrender possession of the property.
 Afterwards, the petitioners filed an Unlawful Detainer against the respondents before
the MTC.
 On 28 February 2003, the respondents their answer with counterclaim averring that
the property belonged to them, their predecessor-in-interest had been in peaceful and
continuous possession of the property since time immemorial, and Albina never
owned the subject property.
 On 23 February 2004, the MTC decided in favor of the petitioners. The MTC relied on
the 2 tax declarations and the certification from the Municipal Treasurer showing that
Albina had been paying the real property taxes of the property.
 On 14 October 2004, the RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC in toto.
 On 11 July 2006, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC and dismissed
the case holding that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive proof of
ownership or right of possession. The CA further held that said documents only
become strong evidence of ownership when accompanied by proof of actual
possession.
 On 13 December 2006, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the
petitioners.
 On 14 December 2006, the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan issued OCT No. 13627
covering Lot 742 in the names of the Heirs of Albina.
 On 16 January 2007, the petitioners filed the instant petition for review.
ISSUES:
1. MAIN ISSUE for PROPERTY: WONExequiel had the authority to file the complaint on
behalf of his co-heirs – YES
a. RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER: Respondents claimed that the petition was defective in
form. They questioned the special power of attorney submitted by
Exequiel because it neither showed that the persons who executed the said
affidavit were the real heirs of Albina nor did it authorize him to institute
the petition.
b. THE COURT HELD THAT: Art. 487, NCC provides that anyone of the co-owners
may bring an action for ejectment without joining the others. The action
is not limited to ejectment cases but includes all kinds of suits for
recovery of possession because the suit is presumed to have been
instituted for the benefit of all. (The Court cited the cases of Adlawan v.
Adlawan and Celino v. Heirs of Santiago.)
c. THE COURT HELD THAT: Citing the case of Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, a
co-owner is not even a necessary party to an action for ejectment, for
complete relief could be afforded even in his absence.
d. THE COURT HELD THAT: In the instant case, the complaint clearly stated that the
property was held in common by the petitioners, and that the action was
brought to recover possession of the property from the respondents for the
benefit of all the heirs of Albina. Hence, Exequiel, a co-owner, may bring
the action even without the special power of attorney of his co-heirs, for a
complete relief can be accorded in the suit even without their
participation because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of
all the co-owners.
2. MAIN ISSUE of the CASE: WON
the petitioners had the better right to the physical possession
of the subject property – YES
a. RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER: Respondents echoed the position of the CA that tax
declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership.
 b. THE COURT HELD THAT: The bare allegation of the respondents, that they had
been in peaceful and continuous possession of the lot in question because
their predecessor-in-interest had been in possession thereof in the concept
of an owner from time immemorial, cannot prevail over the tax declarations
and other documentary evidence presented by petitioners. In the absence of
any supporting evidence, that of the petitioners deserves more probative
value.
c. THE COURT HELD THAT: The perusal of the records showed that the respondents’
occupation of the property was by mere tolerance. These records included
the tax declarations submitted by the petitioners, a survey plan dated 05
August 1968 used in support of Albina’s application for the registration of
the property, and the OCT issued by the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan over
Lot 742 in the names of the heirs of Albina. The Court also noted the
Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Perfecto.
d. THE COURT HELD THAT: Therespondents could not present proof that they and their
predecessors-in-interest had openly and continuously possessed the subject
property since time immemorial. Granting that respondents or their
predecessors-in-interests had been in possession in the concept of an owner
since time immemorial, none of them declared it for taxation purposes and,
thus, never paid taxes thereon. Respondents' allegation that they were in
peaceful, continuous, and adverse possession of the property, unsupported by
any evidence, was not substantial to establish their interest over it.
e. THE COURT HELD THAT: Ownership over the land cannot be acquired by mere
occupation. While it is true that tax declarations are not conclusive evidence
of ownership, they, nevertheless, constitute at least proof that the holder has
a claim of title over the property. It strengthens one's bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership.
RULING:
”The petition is GRANTED. The 11 July 2006 Decision and the 13 December 2006 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 91568, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The 23 February
2004 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court, affirmed in toto by the Regional Trial Court, is ordered
REINSTATED.”