This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-03-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Article 487 of the Civil Code provides that any one of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment. The article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession, including an accion publiciana and a reivindicatory action.A co-owner may file suit without necessarily 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 plaintiff will benefit the other co-owners, but if the judgment is adverse, the same cannot prejudice the rights of the unimpleaded co-owners.[13] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| However, if the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, as in Civil Case No. 1330, the action will not prosper unless he impleads the other co-owners who are indispensable parties.[32] The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[33] The trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over the indispensable parties who are not impleaded in the case, and judgment thereon cannot be valid and binding against them. A decision that is null and void for want of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court is not a decision in contemplation of law; hence, it can never become final and executory.[34] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Worth mentioning is the doctrine that any adverse ruling in the earlier case will not, in any way, prejudice the heirs who did not join, even if such case was actually filed in behalf of all the co-owners. In fact, if an action for recovery of property is dismissed, a subsequent action by a co-heir who did not join the earlier case should not be barred by prior judgment.[35] Any judgment of the court in favor of the co-owner will benefit the others, but if the judgment is adverse, the same cannot prejudice the rights of the unimpleaded co-owners.[36] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In any case, we sustain the appellate court's finding that the respondents have the better right to possess the subject property. As opposed to the unregistered deeds of sale, the certificate of title certainly deserves more probative value. Indeed, a Torrens Certificate is evidence of indefeasible title of property in favor of the person in whose name appears therein'such holder is entitled to the possession of the property until his title is nullified.[24] | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Being co-owners of the alleged credit, Quirino and Milagros de Guzman may separately bring an action for the recovery thereof. In the fairly recent cases of Baloloy v. Hular[28] and Adlawan v. Adlawan,[29] we held that, in a co-ownership, co-owners may bring actions for the recovery of co-owned property without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of his co-owners. In the latter case and in that of De Guia v. Court of Appeals,[30] we also held that Article 487 of the Civil Code, which provides that any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment, covers all kinds of action for the recovery of possession.[31] | |||||
|
2006-01-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| 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).[26] 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 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.[27] | |||||