G.R. No. 128338 ; March 28, 2005
TINING RESUENA, ALEJANDRA GARAY, LORNA RESUENA, ELEUTERIO RESUENA, EUTIQUIA ROSARIO and UNISIMA RESUENA, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, 11th DIVISION and JUANITO BORROMEO, SR., Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Juanito Borromeo, Sr. was a co-owner of two parcels of land in Talisay, Cebu. Lot No. 2587 was co-owned by Borromeo (6/8 share) and the spouses Bascon (2/8 share). Lot No. 2592 was co-owned by Borromeo and the heirs of Nicolas Maneja, with undetermined shares. Petitioners, except Eutiquia Rosario, resided on portions of Lot No. 2587 allegedly with the permission of the Bascon spouses. Rosario occupied a portion of Lot No. 2592 with the alleged permission of the Maneja heirs. Borromeo, who operated a beach resort on the properties, demanded that petitioners vacate to facilitate the resort’s expansion. Upon their refusal, he filed an ejectment case.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the complaint. It ruled that since the co-owned properties were not yet partitioned and no determinate share was assigned to Borromeo, he had no preferential right of possession over the specific portions occupied by petitioners and thus no right to evict them. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC, holding that under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any co-owner could bring an ejectment action for the benefit of all. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether a co-owner can validly file an action for ejectment against possessors who claim authority from other co-owners, prior to the partition of the commonly owned property.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals, ruling that a co-owner like Borromeo can institute an ejectment suit. The Court clarified that the MTC erred in requiring prior partition. Article 487 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that any one of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment. This action is deemed instituted for the benefit of all co-owners. The purpose of an ejectment case is to recover physical possession, not to resolve ownership. A co-owner has a right to seek such recovery against a third party who unlawfully withholds possession, even if the property is undivided.
The petitioners’ claim of permission from other co-owners does not bar the action. Their possession, even if initially permissible, became unlawful upon Borromeo’s demand to vacate. The right of a co-owner to possess the property is not exclusive but is shared with fellow co-owners. Consequently, any act of a co-owner that prejudices this common right, such as arbitrarily authorizing third parties to occupy the property without the consent of all, can be challenged by another co-owner through an ejectment proceeding. The Court also noted that petitioner Rosario’s claim regarding Lot No. 2592 was insufficiently argued and thus failed. The petition was denied.