SPS. ALFREDO MENDOZA and G.R. No. 156402
ROSARIO F. MENDOZA,
Petitioners, Present:
Puno, J., Chairman,
-
versus - *Sandoval-Gutierrez,
**
Azcuna, and
Garcia, JJ.
MARIA CORONEL, represented
by JUANITO CORONEL, Promulgated:
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PUNO, J.:
On appeal are the Court of Appeals’ (CA’s)
Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 458-M-2001. The RTC of Malolos ruled that the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of Hagonoy, Bulacan, before which respondent filed the ejectment case
against petitioners, had no jurisdiction to decide the case for failure of
respondent to implead her co-owners of the disputed property, the latter being indispensable
parties to the ejectment suit.
The facts are
as follows:
Respondent
Maria Coronel is one of the co-owners of Lots 3250 and 3251 located at Sagrada
Familia, Hagonoy, Bulacan. Petitioners, spouses
Alfredo and Rosario Mendoza, occupied said lots upon tolerance of respondent
and her co-owners without paying any rent.
When respondent demanded that petitioners vacate the premises, the
latter refused. Thus, on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering the defendants and all those claiming rights under them:
(1)
to vacate the
subject premises (lots 3250 and 3251) and to surrender possession of the same
to plaintiff[;]
(2)
to pay plaintiff attorney’s
fees and litigation expenses in the amount of P10,000.00 and to pay a
monthly rental of P500 from receipt of this decision until they shall
have vacated the subject premises; and
(3)
to pay the costs
of suit.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Petitioners appealed to the RTC of
Malolos, Bulacan which ruled in their favor.
It annulled and set aside the appealed decision for want of jurisdiction
of the MTC. It held that the co-owners
of the subject lot should have been impleaded as indispensable parties.
On appeal to
the CA, respondent was successful as the appellate court reversed and set aside
the ruling of the RTC and revived the decision of the MTC dated
Hence, this
appeal.[5]
Petitioners
assign the following errors:
I.
The lower court
erred in ruling that a co-owner can bring an action in ejectment without
impleading his co-owners, relying on an “Errata for pages 38-39 of Volume 280
SCRA,” which appears to alter the original tenor of the ruling in Arcelona vs.
CA that co-owners are indispensable parties.
II.
The lower court
erred in not taking into account that the complaint was filed by an
attorney-in-fact authorized by only one of the co-owners to file the ejectment
suit.
III.
The lower court
erred in allowing the petition for review despite the fact that the
certification against forum-shopping was executed by an attorney-in-fact, in
violation of the requirement that parties must personally sign the same.
The main issue in the case at bar is whether
any of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
The CA is
correct in overruling the RTC. The
latter court held that in Arcelona v. Court of Appeals,[6] we
held that a co-owner cannot maintain an action in ejectment without joining all
the other co-owners, the latter being indispensable parties.
In reversing the
ruling of the RTC, the CA pointed out that the RTC relied on the uncorrected Arcelona
decision. The RTC overlooked
the fact that the decision has been corrected by an “ERRATA for pages 38-39”
appearing on the second leaf of volume 280 of the SCRA. Thus, the CA held:
Formerly, Article 487 of the old Civil Code provided
that “any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.” It was subsequently held that a co-owner
could not maintain an action in ejectment without joining all the other
co-owners.
The foregoing statement was deleted
and replaced with the following:
In the past, a co-owner could not even maintain an
action in ejectment without joining all the other co-owners. . .
While Article 487 of the Civil Code now provides that “any
one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment,” former Chief Justice
Moran also stressed that all of them are necessary and proper parties . . .
We reiterate the Arcelona ruling
that the controlling law is Article 487 of the Civil Code which categorically
states:
Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in
ejectment. (n)
Article 487 is a departure from the
rule laid down in the case of Palarca v. Baguisi[7]
which held that an action for ejectment must be brought by all the co-owners. As explained by Tolentino, the law now allows
a co-owner to bring an action for ejectment, which covers all kinds of actions
for the recovery of possession, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
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.[8]
We also
reject petitioners’ second and third assignment of errors. Petitioners claim that Juanito Coronel,
attorney-in-fact of Maria Coronel, one of the co-owners of the lots in dispute
is not authorized to file the ejectment suit. They insist that he should have obtained the
authority and consent of all the co-owners. But since Article 487 of the Civil Code
authorizes any one of the co-owners to bring an action for ejectment and the
suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all, without the other
co-owners actually giving consent to the suit, it follows that an
attorney-in-fact
of the plaintiff co-owner does not need authority from all the co-owners. He needs authority only from the co-owner
instituting the ejectment suit.
We likewise
hold that the execution of the certification against forum shopping by the
attorney-in-fact in the case at bar is not a violation of the requirement that
the parties must personally sign the same.
The attorney-in-fact, who has authority to file, and who actually filed
the complaint as the representative of the plaintiff co-owner, pursuant to a
Special Power of Attorney, is a party to the ejectment suit. In fact, Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court[9]
includes the representative of the owner in an ejectment suit as one of the
parties authorized to institute the proceedings.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, petitioners’ appeal is DENIED. The
Court of Appeals’ May 30, 2002 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 67157 and November
12, 2002 Resolution, reversing the September 17, 2001 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 458-M-2001 and reviving the
May 29, 2001 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Hagonoy, Bulacan
in Civil Case No. 1308, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
(On
leave)
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairman, Second Division
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
*
On sick leave.
** On leave.
[1] Rollo,
pp. 27-33.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] 280
SCRA 20 (1997).
[7] 38
Phil. 177 (1918).
[8] Tolentino,
Arturo M., Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines,
vol. II, 1992, citing Sering v. Plazo, 166 SCRA 84, 85.
[9] Rule
70, Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer. Section 1. Who may institute
proceedings, and when.- Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding
section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or
other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully
withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession,
by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives
or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, . . . may, at any time
within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession,
bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or
persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, . . . for the
restitution of such possession, . . . (Emphasis supplied.)