G.R. No. 161916 ; January 20, 2006
ARNELITO ADLAWAN, Petitioner, vs. EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN and NARCISA M. ADLAWAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Arnelito Adlawan filed an unlawful detainer suit against respondents Emeterio and Narcisa Adlawan, siblings of his late father Dominador. Arnelito claimed to be Dominador’s sole heir, having executed an affidavit adjudicating to himself Lot 7226, which was registered under Dominador’s name. He alleged he allowed respondents to occupy the property out of generosity, with the condition they would vacate upon his demand. After they refused his verbal and written demands, he initiated the ejectment case.
Respondents countered that they have occupied the lot and the ancestral house since birth, asserting it was originally owned by their parents. They claimed the title was merely transferred to Dominador in 1962 through a simulated deed of sale to secure a loan for house renovations. They further contested Arnelito’s filiation and argued that even if he were an illegitimate child, Dominador was survived by his wife, Graciana, whose heirs are co-owners of the property, thus precluding Arnelito from claiming exclusive ownership.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner can validly maintain an action for ejectment against respondents.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint. The legal logic rests on the nature of co-ownership and the prerequisites for an ejectment suit. The Court found that Dominador Adlawan died intestate, survived by his wife, Graciana. Applying Article 998 of the Civil Code, upon Dominador’s death, his estate was inherited in common by his surviving spouse and his illegitimate child, the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner and the heirs of Graciana became co-owners of the subject property.
An action for ejectment requires the plaintiff to prove a cause of action based on prior physical possession and unlawful withholding by the defendant. Crucially, a co-owner cannot file an ejectment suit solely in his own name to exclude another co-owner or, as in this case, a possessor with the permission of other co-owners. The respondents’ possession was with the tolerance of the heirs of Graciana, who had opposed the ejectment. Therefore, petitioner, being merely a co-owner, lacked the exclusive right of possession necessary to sustain the ejectment action. The proper recourse is not an ejectment suit but an action for partition. The Court emphasized that the issue of ownership, while determinative of the right to possess in this instance, was resolved only to ascertain the propriety of the ejectment remedy, not to definitively settle title.