This is a suit for the recovery of land.  It is said textually in the complaint, among other things, "that both the plaintiffs and  the defendants are so numerous  that it is impossible for them to appear at the trial; that the said Pablo Rallonza and Teodoro Evangelista  are sufficient to represent the interests of the rest of the plaintiffs and defendants, respectively."  And in accordance therewith the trial was continued in the name of the said  Rallonza and Evangelista only, though they both represented, as it appears, all the other interested parties, who were very numerous, both plaintiffs and defendants, according to the statement contained in the  complaint.   After all the evidence had been submitted,  the Court of  First Instance rendered judgment as follows;

"Pablo Rallonza, and many others not mentioned by name, claim the ownership of the land described in the complaint and situated at the place called Puritac, Paoay, Ilocos Norte, as against  Teodoro Evangelista and many others,  likewise not mentioned by name, the former alleging that the latter unlawfully  occupy the same.

"The defendant denies the charge.

"It appears by the evidence that the original owner of the lands of Puritac and Badio or Salamanca, Paoay, Ilocos Norte, was  Felix Duque; that the latter's heirs, whose names or number  are not given, covenanted with the Pagdilao family of Badoc, without any stipulation as to  who or how many composed the  family, to divide the  said lands and bring water thereon for irrigation, the  same being irrigable; that the  actual division that may  have been made is  not shown, nor among whom it was made; that it is likewise not shown what portions of the lands above mentioned were reserved  undivided, and what parcels were not reserved; and  that, finally, it is not shown who are the  descendants of the descendants of Felix Duque, nor who are those of Pagdilao  and their descendants who may have taken part in the work on the irrigation ditches and in the division of the lands.

"Although it appears, by the record, that certain  persons belonging either to  the Duque family or to the Pagdilao family apparently executed acts  of dominion  over  specific parcels of the said lands, it is certain that it is not possible to determine whether the said persons were or were  not the owners, because the real division, which  is alleged to have been made, is not known, so that  the litigating parties themselves  do not know  and can  not say who are  the plaintiffs and who are the defendants, or better said, it is not known who are the owners and which  are the properties that pertain to them, neither in general nor in particular.

"Not being able, for  the reasons set forth, to determine who is the owner or who are  the owners of the lands  in question, the court acquits the  defendant  of the complaint, without special finding of costs."

In view of the premises established in the judgment, and which accord with  the weight  of  the  evidence and the allegation made in the complaint that the  parties interested in the lands in litigation, both  as plaintiffs  and as defendants,  are very numerous,  it is evident that the  suit was improperly prosecuted and decided in the name of all the aforesaid interested parties  to whom reference  is made, under the supposition  that  the latter were  represented therein by  Pablo Rallonza and Teodoro Evangelista, respectively, the  only ones who personally appeared in their own right and in representation of the former at the trial.

It appears  that the  parties  proceeded as herein before related because of the provisions of section 118 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions.   The text  of this section is as follows:

"SEC. 118. Numerous parties. - When the subject-matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest  to many persons, and the  parties are so numerous that  it is impracticable to bring  them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.   But in  such case any party in interest shall have a right to intervene in protection of his individual interest, and  the court shall make sure that the parties actually before it are sufficiently numerous and representative so that all interests concerned are fully protected."

Whatever be the real  meaning of those  provisions, under the different  aspects in  which they may be  considered, we hold it to  be  certain and unquestionable that they ought not to and can  not  apply to actions instituted, as in the present case, for the recovery  of property.   This class of actions should always be promoted by the interested parties themselves and  in the name of all and each one of them, in order that, as stated in section 114 of the aforementioned code of procedure, there may be a determination or complete settlement of the questions in litigation.   He who considers himself entitled to a certain property can not be ignorant as to who are his coowners, if  he  has any; and, knowing them, he can not neglect to make them  parties to  the suit under the pretext that they are numerous.  This  sole  circumstance does not make their summons and appearance impossible when they are  personally known.  In such a case,  the reason or motive inspiring the provisions of section 118  would be lacking.  The representation made  by Pablo Rallonza, as plaintiff, and by  Teodoro  Evangelista, as defendant, can not bind their respective coowners, as regards the results of the trial, inasmuch as it  is altogether illegal.  The trial, considered from this  point of view, was essentially null and void from the beginning.

The judgment appealed from is set aside, and it is ordered that a new trial be held wherein  those interested in  the lands in question shall be made parties,  either as plaintiffs or as defendants.  No special ruling is made as to the costs in this instance.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J.,  Torres and Carson, JJ., concur.