Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Case Title: Adlawan V. Adlawan Case Number: G.R. No. 161916. January 20, 2006. Doctrine: Co-Ownership & Ejectment

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a house and lot registered under Dominador Adlawan. His acknowledged illegitimate son Arnelito claims to be the sole heir and filed an ejectment suit against Dominador's siblings who were occupying the property. However, the court found that upon Dominador's death, his wife Graciana and Arnelito became co-owners, and upon Graciana's death her relatives also became co-owners. As Arnelito was not the sole heir and brought the suit solely for his own benefit, his ejectment claim could not be maintained since he was not the sole owner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Title: Adlawan V. Adlawan Case Number: G.R. No. 161916. January 20, 2006. Doctrine: Co-Ownership & Ejectment

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    65 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a house and lot registered under Dominador Adlawan. His acknowledged illegitimate son Arnelito claims to be the sole heir and filed an ejectment suit against Dominador's siblings who were occupying the property. However, the court found that upon Dominador's death, his wife Graciana and Arnelito became co-owners, and upon Graciana's death her relatives also became co-owners. As Arnelito was not the sole heir and brought the suit solely for his own benefit, his ejectment claim could not be maintained since he was not the sole owner.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Adlawan v. Adlawan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a house and lot registered under Dominador Adlawan. His acknowledged illegitimate son Arnelito claims to be the sole heir and filed an ejectment suit against Dominador's siblings who were occupying the property. However, the court found that upon Dominador's death, his wife Graciana and Arnelito became co-owners, and upon Graciana's death her relatives also became co-owners. As Arnelito was not the sole heir and brought the suit solely for his own benefit, his ejectment claim could not be maintained since he was not the sole owner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    65 views1 page

    Case Title: Adlawan V. Adlawan Case Number: G.R. No. 161916. January 20, 2006. Doctrine: Co-Ownership & Ejectment

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a house and lot registered under Dominador Adlawan. His acknowledged illegitimate son Arnelito claims to be the sole heir and filed an ejectment suit against Dominador's siblings who were occupying the property. However, the court found that upon Dominador's death, his wife Graciana and Arnelito became co-owners, and upon Graciana's death her relatives also became co-owners. As Arnelito was not the sole heir and brought the suit solely for his own benefit, his ejectment claim could not be maintained since he was not the sole owner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Case Title: ADLAWAN V.

    ADLAWAN
    Case Number: G.R. No. 161916. January 20, 2006.

    Doctrine: Co-ownership & Ejectment

    A co-owner by virtue of Art. 487 is allowed to bring an action without necessity of including all
    the co-owners as plaintiffs for it is presumed to be for the benefit of all BUT if the action of the
    plaintiff alone, the action should be dismissed.

    FACTS:

    A house and lot (lot 7226) was registered in the name of Dominador Adlawan, the father of
    (petitioner) Arnelito Adlawan. He is the acknowledged illegitimate child of Dominador who is
    claiming that he is the sole heir. He then adjudicated to himself the said house and lot to himself
    and out of generosity allowed the siblings of his father to occupy the property provided that they
    vacate when asked. Time came when he demanded that they vacate and when they refused he
    filed an ejectment suit against them.

    His aunt and uncle on the other hand, Narcisa (70) and Emeterio (59) denied his allegations
    claiming that the said lot was registered in their parents name and they had been living in the said
    house and lot since birth. The only reason why the said house and lot was transferred in
    Dominador’s name was when their parents were in need of money for renovating their house,
    their parents were not qualified to obtain a loan and since Dominador was the only one who had
    a college education, they executed a simulated deed of sale in favor of Dominador.

    The MTC dismissed the complaint holding that Arnelito’s filiation and the settlement of the
    estate are conditions precedent for the accrual of the suit. And since Dominador was survived by
    his wife, Graciana, her legal heirs are entitled to their share in the lot. The RTC ordered Narcisa
    and Emeterio to turn over the possession of the lot to Arnelito. It also granted the motion of
    execution which was opposed by the nephew and nieces of Graciana who claim that they have a
    share in the lot.

    The CA reinstated the decision of the MTC holding that Arnelito and the heirs of Graciana are
    co-heirs thus he cannot eject them from the property via unlawful detainer. Thus the case at bar.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Arnelito can validly maintain the ejectment suit.

    HELD:

    NO. The theory of succession invoked by Arnelito would prove that he is not the sole heir of
    Dominador. Since he was survived was his wife, upon his death, Arnelito and Graciana became
    co-owners of the lot. Upon her death, her share passed on to her relatives by consanguinity thus
    making them co-owners as well.

    Petitioner contends that Art. 487 allows him to file the instant petition. (Art. 487. Any one of the
    co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.) It is true that a co-owner may bring such an action
    w/o necessity of joining all the co-owners as plaintiffs because it is presumed to be instituted for
    the benefit of all BUT if the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, the action should be
    dismissed.

    Since petitioner brought the suit in his name and for his benefit alone and his repudiation of the
    ownership of the other heirs, the instant petition should be dismissed.

    You might also like