Resuena v CA

Resuena V CA

FACTS: Petition for Review on certiorari under Rule 45.Juanito Borromeo, Sr. is the co-owner and overseer of

certain parcels of land located in Pooc, Talisay,Cebu, designated as Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 of the TalisayManglanilla Estate. He owned six-eighths (6/8) of LotNo. 2587 while the Sps. Bascon owned two-eights (2/8) thereof. On the other hand, Lot No. 2592 is owned inc ommon by Borromeo and the heirs of one Nicolas Maneja. However, the proportion of their undivided shares was not determined a quo.Tining Resuena, Alejandra Garay, Lorna Resuena, Eleuterio Resuena, and Unisima Resuena resided in the upper portion of Lot No. 2587, allegedly under the acquiescence of the Spouses Bascon and their heir, Andres Bascon. On the other hand, petitioner Eutiquia Rosario occupied a portion of Lot No. 2592, allegedly with the permission of the heirs of Nicolas Maneja, one of the original co-owners of Lot No. 2587. Borromeo claimed that they have occupied portions of the subject property by virtue of his own liberality. Borromeo developed portions of Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 occupied by him into a resort known as theBorromeo Beach Resort. In his desire to expand and extend the facilities of the resort that he established on thesubject properties, respondent demanded that petitioners vacate the property. Petitioners, however, refused tovacate their homes.On 16 February 1994, Borromeo filed a Complaint for ejectment with the MTC against the petitioners.MTC decision (summary proceeding): dismissed the complaint. Borromeo had no right to evict thepetitioners because the area was owned in common and there was no partition yet.RTC decision: reversed the MTC decision. It held that Article 487 of the Civil Code, which allows any oneof the co-owners to bring an action in ejectment, may successfully be invoked by the respondent because, in asense, a co-owner is the owner and possessor of the whole, and that the suit for ejectment is deemed to beinstituted for the benefit of all co-owners.CA decision: affirmed the RTC decision. ISSUE : Whether or not Borromeo Borromeo can lawfully evict the petitioners. Held :

Article 487 of the Civil Code, which provides simply that “*any “*any one of the co-owners may bring an actionin ejectment,” is a categorical and an unqualified authority in favor of respondent to evict petitioners from the por po rtion ti ons s of Lot. Lo t. No. No . 2587 25 87..This provisio provision n is a depart departure ure from Palarca Palarca v. Bagui Baguisi, si, which which held held that that an action action for for ejectment must bebrought by all the co-owners. Thus, a co-owner may bring an action to exercise and protect the rights of all. Whenthe action is brought by one co-owner for the benefit of all, a favorable decision will benefit them; but an adversedecision cannot prejudice their rights.

Respondent’s action for ejectment against petitioners is deemed to deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all co-owners of the property since petitioners were not able to prove that they are authorized to occupy the same. Petitioners’ lack of authority to occupy the properties, coupled with respondent’s right under Article 487,clearly settles respondent’s prerogative to eject petitioners from Lot No. 2587.  Ti  Time and again, this Court hasrul ruled that persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's toleran rance or permission, without any contractbetween them, are necessarily bound by an implied promise that they will vacate the same upon demand,failing in which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them Petition is DENIED.

Salvador V CA Facts:

1. Alipio Yabo - owner of Lot No. 6080 and Lot No. 6180 situated in Barrio Bulua, Cagayan de Oro City. Upon Ailipio’s death, the land title was transferred upon his 9 children sometime before or during the WWII. 2. Apr 28 1976 - Pastor Makibalo filed @CFI a complaint, against the spouses Alberto and Elpia Yabo for "Quieting of Title, Annulment of Documents, and Damages." a. Pastor alleged - he owned a total of 8 shares of the subject lots (he purchased the shares of 7 of Alipio's children and inherited the share of his wife) b. That he (Pastor) occupied, cultivated, and possessed continuously, openly, peacefully, and exclusively the 2 parcels of land. c. Pastor prayed that he be declared the absolute owner of 8/9 of the lots in question 3. Oct 8 1976 - grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Alipio filed at same CFI a complaint for partition and quieting of title with damages against Pastor Makibalo, Enecia Cristal, and the spouses Salvador. a. They alleged - Lot No. 6080 and Lot No. 6180 are the common property of the heirs of Alipio namely, the plaintiffs, defendant Enecia Cristal, Maria Yabo and Jose Yabo, whose share had been sold to Alberto Yabo; b. Also alleged - after Alipio's death, the spouses Pastor and Maria Makibalo, Enecia Cristal and Jose Yabo became the de facto administrators of the said properties;

Issues:

1. Which portion of Lot No. 6080 and Lot No. 6180 formed part of the conjugal assets of the spouses Pastor Makibalo and Maria Yabo? 2. Whether or not Pastor Makibalo has acquired by presc ription the shares of his other co-heirs or co-owners? HELD :

1. “Article 160 NCC - all property of the marriage is pres umed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Since the shares of Jose, Victoriano, Lope, Baseliza, Procopio, and Francisca in Lot No. 6180 and Lot No. 6080 had been purchased by Pastor during his marriage with Maria, and there is no proof that these were acquired with his exclusive money, the same are deemed conjugal properties.” 2.NO. “Article 494 NCC which provides that each co -owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property implies that an action to demand partit ion is imprescriptible or cannot be barred by laches. The imprescriptibility of the action cannot, however, be invoked when one of the co-owners has possessed the property as exclusive owner and for a period sufficient to acquire it by prescription.” 3. CA decision affirmed and modified: “(a) the former 1/9 share of Pelagia in Lots No. 6180 and 6080 which she sold to Pastor should be treated as Pastor's exclusive property which should now pertain to the Spouses Salvador, his successors-in-interest; and (b) the former 1/9 share of Procopio in both lots should be divided as follows: 3/4 (Pastor's 1/2 conjugal share and 1/4 as his share as Maria's heir) for t he spouses Alberto and Elpia Yabo, and 1/4 (the share of Maria's collateral relatives as Maria's heirs) for the private respondents, including Alberto and  Jose Yabo.”