GR 156402; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156402 ; February 13, 2006
SPS. ALFREDO MENDOZA and ROSARIO F. MENDOZA, Petitioners, vs. MARIA CORONEL, represented by JUANITO CORONEL, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Maria Coronel, a co-owner of two lots in Hagonoy, Bulacan, filed an unlawful detainer case before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against petitioners Spouses Mendoza, who occupied the lots by tolerance without paying rent. The MTC ruled in favor of Coronel, ordering the Mendozas to vacate and pay rentals. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) annulled the MTC decision, holding it lacked jurisdiction because Coronel failed to implead her co-owners as indispensable parties to the ejectment suit.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC decision. The CA held that a co-owner can independently file an ejectment action under Article 487 of the Civil Code. The Mendozas elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in allowing a single co-owner to sue without joining all others and in accepting the complaint and certification against forum-shopping filed by Coronel’s attorney-in-fact.
ISSUE
Whether a co-owner may file an action for ejectment without joining all the other co-owners as parties to the suit.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The Court clarified that Article 487 of the Civil Code expressly provides that “any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.” This provision is a deliberate departure from the old rule requiring all co-owners to be joined in such actions. The suit is deemed instituted for the benefit of all co-owners, even without their explicit consent or participation. The Court cited the corrected ruling in Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, which superseded contrary precedents.
The Court also rejected the ancillary arguments. The attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff co-owner needs authority only from that co-owner, not from all co-owners, as the action benefits all. Furthermore, the certification against forum-shopping executed by the duly authorized attorney-in-fact is valid, as Rule 70 of the Rules of Court allows a representative of the owner to institute ejectment proceedings. Therefore, the MTC validly acquired jurisdiction, and its decision stands.