CASE DIGEST: Heirs of Ampil vs. Manahan
G.R. No. 175990 : October 11, 2012
HEIRS OF ALBINA G. AMPIL, namely PRECIOUS A. ZAVALLA, EDUARDO AMPIL, PENAFRANCIA A. OLANO, VICENTE G. AMPIL, JR., FROILAN G. AMPIL and EXEQUIEL G. AMPIL, represented by EXEQUIEL G. AMPIL,Petitioners, v. TERESA MANAHAN and MARIO MANAHAN, Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
Albina Ampil (Albina) was the owner of two (2) adjoining residential lots situated in Sto. Ni, Paombong, Bulacan. Albina allowed Perfecto Manahan (Perfecto) and his family, including Teresa and Mario Manahan (Manahans), to occupy a portion of the said properties on the condition that they would vacate the same should the need to use it arise.
After the death of Albina, her heirs, represented by Exequiel Ampil (Exequiel), demanded Perfecto and his family to vacate the property in question but the latter refused. Thus, Exequiel, as representative of the heirs of the late Albina, filed a complaint for ejectment before the MTC.
To prove ownership over the property, Exequiel presented the tax declarations covering the properties and a certification issued by the Municipality of Paombong, Bulacan, showing that their mother, Albina, had been paying the corresponding real property taxes thereon. The MTC rendered judgment in favor of Albinas heirs. The MTC relied on the tax declarations submitted as evidence. The RTC affirmed the MTC. However, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.
The Manahans move for the dismissal of this petition on the ground that Exequiel has no authority to institute the present case. They also aver that they and their predecessors-in-interest had openly and continuously possessed the subject land since time immemorial.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not Exequiel Ampil has the authority to file the present petition on behalf of his co-heirs?
II. Whether or not the tax declarations can serve as proof of ownership?
HELD: Petition is granted.
FIRST ISSUE: Exequiel, a co-owner, may bring the action for unlawful detainer even without the special power of attorney of his co-heirs.
REMEDIAL LAW: co-owners- not indispensable parties
Article 487 of the Civil Code provides that anyone of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment without joining the others. The action is not limited to ejectment cases but includes all kinds of suits for recovery of possession because the suit is presumed to have been instituted for the benefit of all. Also, in the case of Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, this Court ruled that a co-owner was not even a necessary party to an action for ejectment, for complete relief could be afforded even in his absence, thus: "In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and the relevant jurisprudence, any one of them may bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be afforded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners."
SECOND ISSUE: The Court sustains the findings of both the MTC and the RTC.
CIVIL LAW: tax declarations as proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property
The bare allegation of respondents, that they had been in peaceful and continuous possession of the lot in question because their predecessor-in-interest had been in possession thereof in the concept of an owner from time immemorial, cannot prevail over the tax declarations and other documentary evidence presented by petitioners. In the absence of any supporting evidence, that of the petitioners deserves more probative value.
Well established is the rule that ownership over the land cannot be acquired by mere occupation. While it is true that tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they nevertheless, constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. It strengthens ones bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
HEIRS OF ALBINA G. AMPIL, namely PRECIOUS A. ZAVALLA, EDUARDO AMPIL, PENAFRANCIA A. OLANO, VICENTE G. AMPIL, JR., FROILAN G. AMPIL and EXEQUIEL G. AMPIL, represented by EXEQUIEL G. AMPIL,Petitioners, v. TERESA MANAHAN and MARIO MANAHAN, Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
Albina Ampil (Albina) was the owner of two (2) adjoining residential lots situated in Sto. Ni, Paombong, Bulacan. Albina allowed Perfecto Manahan (Perfecto) and his family, including Teresa and Mario Manahan (Manahans), to occupy a portion of the said properties on the condition that they would vacate the same should the need to use it arise.
After the death of Albina, her heirs, represented by Exequiel Ampil (Exequiel), demanded Perfecto and his family to vacate the property in question but the latter refused. Thus, Exequiel, as representative of the heirs of the late Albina, filed a complaint for ejectment before the MTC.
To prove ownership over the property, Exequiel presented the tax declarations covering the properties and a certification issued by the Municipality of Paombong, Bulacan, showing that their mother, Albina, had been paying the corresponding real property taxes thereon. The MTC rendered judgment in favor of Albinas heirs. The MTC relied on the tax declarations submitted as evidence. The RTC affirmed the MTC. However, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.
The Manahans move for the dismissal of this petition on the ground that Exequiel has no authority to institute the present case. They also aver that they and their predecessors-in-interest had openly and continuously possessed the subject land since time immemorial.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not Exequiel Ampil has the authority to file the present petition on behalf of his co-heirs?
II. Whether or not the tax declarations can serve as proof of ownership?
HELD: Petition is granted.
FIRST ISSUE: Exequiel, a co-owner, may bring the action for unlawful detainer even without the special power of attorney of his co-heirs.
REMEDIAL LAW: co-owners- not indispensable parties
Article 487 of the Civil Code provides that anyone of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment without joining the others. The action is not limited to ejectment cases but includes all kinds of suits for recovery of possession because the suit is presumed to have been instituted for the benefit of all. Also, in the case of Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, this Court ruled that a co-owner was not even a necessary party to an action for ejectment, for complete relief could be afforded even in his absence, thus: "In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and the relevant jurisprudence, any one of them may bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be afforded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners."
SECOND ISSUE: The Court sustains the findings of both the MTC and the RTC.
CIVIL LAW: tax declarations as proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property
The bare allegation of respondents, that they had been in peaceful and continuous possession of the lot in question because their predecessor-in-interest had been in possession thereof in the concept of an owner from time immemorial, cannot prevail over the tax declarations and other documentary evidence presented by petitioners. In the absence of any supporting evidence, that of the petitioners deserves more probative value.
Well established is the rule that ownership over the land cannot be acquired by mere occupation. While it is true that tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they nevertheless, constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. It strengthens ones bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
GRANTED.
