CIVIL PROCEDURE: IF THE PROPERTY IS UNDER THE STATE OF CO-OWNERSHIP, CAN A SUIT FOR EJECTMENT BE BROUGHT WITHOUT IMPLEADING THE OTHER CO-OWNERS? MOREOVER, IN THE SAME SUIT, ARE THE CO-OWNERS CONSIDERED INDISPENSABLE PARTIES?

          When the controversy involves a property held in common, Article 487 of the New Civil Code explicitly provides that "any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment." 

The Supreme Court however clarified in Vencilao v. Camarenta that the term "action in ejectment" includes a suit for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio).  In Sering v. Plazo and Estreller v. Ysmael, it also noted that the term "action in ejectment" includes", an accion publiciana (recovery of possession) or accion reinvidicatoria (recovery of ownership)." And, in Plasabas v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009, it empathically stated that Article 487 of the Civil Code covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession, including an accion publiciana and a reivindicatory action. 

Thus, a co-owner may file suit without necessarily joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. Any judgment of the court in favor of the plaintiff will benefit the other co-owners, but if the judgment is adverse, the same cannot prejudice the rights of the unimpleaded co-owners.   

Put differently, the Supreme Court in several occasion, has upheld the right of a co-owner to file a suit without impleading other co-owners, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code.

Be that as it may, in order to clarify this issue, the Supreme Court in MARMO vs. ANACAY, G.R. No. 182585, November 27, 2009, invariably stated:

“We made this ruling in Vencilao, where the amended complaint for "forcible entry and detainer" specified that the plaintiff is one of the heirs who co-owns the disputed properties. In Sering, and Resuena v. Court of Appeals, the co-owners who filed the ejectment case did not represent themselves as the exclusive owners of the property. In Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago, the complaint for quieting of title was brought in behalf of the co-owners precisely to recover lots owned in common. In Plasabas, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint for recovery of title to property (accion reivindicatoria) that they are the sole owners of the property in litigation, but acknowledged during the trial that the property is co-owned with other parties, and the plaintiffs have been authorized by the co-owners to pursue the case on the latter’s behalf” (emphasis supplied).

Proceeding from such premise, the Supreme Court clarified that the foregoing cases should be distinguished from Baloloy v. Hular 481 Phil. 398 (2004) and Adlawan v. Adlawan G.R. No. 161916, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 275, where the actions for quieting of title and unlawful detainer, respectively, were brought for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claimed to be the sole owner.  The High Court held that the action will not prosper unless the plaintiff impleaded the other co-owners who are indispensable parties. Thus, in these cases, the absence of an indispensable party rendered all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.

However, in order to put things in its proper perspective, the Supreme Court stated that we have to read the aforementioned cases to collectively mean that where the suit is brought by a co-owner, without repudiating the co-ownership, then the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of the other co-owners and may proceed without impleading the other co-owners. 

On the other hand, where the co-owner repudiates the co-ownership by claiming sole ownership of the property or where the suit is brought against a co-owner, his co-owners are indispensable parties and must be impleaded as party-defendants, as the suit affects the rights and interests of these other co-owners.

Otherwise stated, if the co-owner of a property who brought the action does not repudiate the co-ownership, then the other co-owner are not considered as indispensable parties to the resolution of the case.

As the Supreme Court aptly pointed out in Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, G.R. No. 160347, November 29, 2006, 508 SCRA 469, 487-488, in cases like this, the co-owners are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be accorded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of all. (MARMO vs. ANACAY, G.R. No. 182585, November 27, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).