G.R. No. 166519 , March 31, 2009
NIEVES PLASABAS and MARCOS MALAZARTE, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Former Ninth Division), DOMINADOR LUMEN, and AURORA AUNZO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Nieves Plasabas and Marcos Malazarte filed a complaint in 1974 for recovery of title to property with damages before the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Maasin, Southern Leyte against respondents Dominador Lumen and Aurora Aunzo. The subject property was a parcel of coconut land declared under Tax Declaration No. 3587 in the name of petitioner Nieves. Petitioners prayed for confirmation of their rights and title, and for respondents to vacate and pay damages. Respondents denied petitioners’ ownership, asserting the land was inherited by all parties from their common ancestor, Francisco Plasabas. During trial, it was revealed that petitioner Nieves was not the sole owner; the property passed from Francisco to Leoncio, then to Jovita Talam (Nieves’ grandmother), then to Antonina Talam (her mother), and then to her and her siblings—Jose, Victor, and Victoria. After both parties rested their cases, respondents argued in their memorandum that the case should be dismissed for failure to implead indispensable parties, namely the other co-owners (Jose, Victor, and Victoria). The trial court, in an Order dated April 19, 1993, dismissed the case without prejudice, citing Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on compulsory joinder of indispensable parties, stating that petitioners lacked complete legal personality to sue alone. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, adding that the non-joinder violated due process and that Article 487 of the Civil Code (allowing a co-owner to bring an action for ejectment) could not be applied as the complaint was for recovery of title, not ejectment.

ISSUE

Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in dismissing the case on the ground of non-joinder of indispensable parties, specifically the other co-owners of the subject property.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the case to the trial court for disposition on the merits. The Court held that under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any one of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment, which covers all kinds of actions for recovery of possession, including an accion publiciana and a reivindicatory action. A co-owner may file suit without joining all other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed instituted for the benefit of all. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff benefits all co-owners, but an adverse judgment does not prejudice the rights of unimpleaded co-owners. The exception is when the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone claiming sole ownership; in such a case, the other co-owners are indispensable parties. Here, petitioners’ initial allegation of sole ownership was immaterial, as they acknowledged during trial that the property was co-owned and that they were authorized by the co-owners to pursue the case. Thus, impleading the other co-owners was not mandatory. Furthermore, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal; the remedy is to implead them. The trial and appellate courts committed reversible error in dismissing the case after a protracted trial on this sole ground.