GR 146294; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146294 ; July 31, 2006
John Abing, petitioner, vs. Juliet Waeyan, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner John Abing and respondent Juliet Waeyan cohabited without marriage from 1986. They jointly purchased a house. In 1992, an annex structure housing a sari-sari store was added. Their relationship deteriorated in 1995, leading to an unsigned Memorandum of Agreement for property partition, wherein Juliet would pay John a specified sum for his share, and he would vacate. Juliet made a partial payment but defaulted on the balance.
John filed an ejectment suit before the Municipal Trial Court, claiming exclusive ownership of the annex, built with his sole funds and under his tax declaration. Juliet countered it was built with common funds and was part of their co-owned property. The MTC ruled for John, ordering ejectment. The Regional Trial Court affirmed, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
ISSUE
Whether an action for ejectment is proper to oust a co-owner from possession of a commonly owned property based on a failure to comply with a partition agreement.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals, with modification regarding the agreement’s validity. The legal logic is anchored on property relations of unmarried cohabitants and the nature of ejectment. Properties acquired during cohabitation are governed by co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code, presumed equal in the absence of proof of contrary contributions. The Court found John’s evidence insufficient to rebut this presumption and establish his exclusive ownership of the annex structure.
Consequently, Juliet, as a co-owner, possesses the property by right of ownership, not by any contract, force, or stealth. Ejectment requires the plaintiff to prove a better right of possession derived from ownership, contract, or law, against one whose possession is merely tolerated or unlawful. A co-owner’s possession is lawful; disputes over exclusive use or partition are not proper for ejectment but for an action for judicial partition or specific performance. While the unsigned Memorandum of Agreement had binding effect due to partial performance, Juliet’s breach merely gave John a cause for a sum of money or rescission, not ejectment. Thus, the ejectment suit was improperly filed.