GR 168156; (December, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168156 ; December 6, 2006
HEIRS OF ROSENDO LASAM, Represented by Rogelio Lasam and Atty. Edward P. Llonillo, petitioners, vs. VICENTA UMENGAN, respondent.
FACTS
The petitioners, Heirs of Rosendo Lasam, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against respondent Vicenta Umengan over a lot in Tuguegarao City. The lot was part of the inheritance of Isabel Cuntapay from her parents. Petitioners claimed ownership, alleging their father Rosendo Lasam (Isabel’s son by her second marriage) was the sole heir per Isabel’s last will and testament, which bequeathed the property to him. They asserted that Umengan’s possession, which began in 1955, was merely by tolerance.
Umengan countered that upon Isabel’s death, the lot was inherited by her six children through intestate succession, each receiving a 1/6 pro indiviso share. She claimed ownership over 4/6 of the property, having acquired the shares of her father Abdon Turingan (by donation) and her uncles Rufo and Sado Turingan (by purchase). She argued that Rosendo and his sister Trinidad only owned the remaining 2/6 share collectively.
ISSUE
The core issue was whether the petitioners, relying on an unprobated will, established a better right of possession to justify Umengan’s ejectment in an unlawful detainer suit.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the unlawful detainer complaint. The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove a superior right of possession, which is essential in an ejectment case. Their claim rested entirely on the purported last will and testament of Isabel Cuntapay. However, this document was not probated. The Court emphasized that the probate of a will is mandatory; an unprobated will cannot be the source of any right and is essentially invalid. Until admitted to probate, the will confers no title or right to the named beneficiary.
Consequently, without the probated will, the estate of Isabel Cuntapay was deemed to have been settled via intestacy. Under intestate succession, all six children were legitimate heirs. Therefore, Rosendo Lasam was merely a co-owner of a 1/6 share, not the sole owner. As a mere co-owner, he could not exclusively eject another co-owner, Umengan, who derived her claim from other co-heirs. The action for unlawful detainer, which requires the plaintiff to prove a better right of possession, thus had no merit. The proper remedy for the petitioners was not an ejectment suit but an action for partition among the co-heirs.