G.R. No. 180614 ; August 29, 2012
LEONARDO NOTARTE, GUILLERMO NOTARTE, REGALADO NOTARTE AND HEIRS OF FELIPE NOTARTE, Petitioners, vs. GODOFREDO NOTARTE, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over portions of a 263,233-square meter land in Bani, Pangasinan, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 48098, issued in 1931 and registered under seven co-owners. Respondent Godofredo Notarte purchased a parcel of land in 1984 from Patrocenia Nebril-Gamboa, described as 29,482 square meters and later amended to 27,604.714 square meters, purportedly part of the 1/7 share of co-owner Bernardo Notarte. Godofredo filed an adverse claim and a tax declaration in his name. He subsequently sued his relatives, the petitioners, for recovery of possession and damages, alleging they encroached on his purchased land, reducing his actual possession to about 13,000 square meters.
Petitioners, who are Godofredo’s uncle and cousins, denied the encroachment. They asserted possession of their own adjoining parcels, which they claimed were portions acquired by their common ascendant, Felipe Notarte, from other sources as early as 1951. They contended that the land Godofredo bought was merely an undivided portion of the larger co-owned property under OCT No. 48098 and that his action could not prosper without impleading all other co-owners. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the complaint, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

The core issue is whether an action for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) filed by a buyer of a specific portion of an undivided co-owned property is valid and can succeed against other co-owners in possession, without joining all co-owners of the parent title as indispensable parties.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the CA and RTC decisions and REINSTATED the MTC’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that the action for recovery of possession was improperly filed and could not be granted. The land covered by OCT No. 48098 remained undivided, and the seven original owners and their heirs were pro-indiviso co-owners. A co-owner has no right to recover exclusive possession of a specific portion from another co-owner, as possession by one co-owner is presumed to be on behalf of all. Godofredo’s purchase from a predecessor-in-interest did not automatically segregate a specific, identifiable portion from the mass of co-owned property. His remedy was not an accion publiciana against other possessors but an action for partition to legally segregate his rightful share. Furthermore, the Court ruled that all co-owners under OCT No. 48098 were indispensable parties to any suit seeking to affect the co-owned property. Their non-joinder was fatal to Godofredo’s cause of action, as a final determination of rights could not be made without them. The petitioners’ possession, being that of co-owners, could not be disturbed by an action for recovery of possession filed by a fellow co-owner.