The Supreme Court in Resuena v. Court of Appeals affirmed that a co-owner can bring an action for ejectment against individuals occupying the property without proper authorization. This ruling underscores the right of a co-owner to protect the shared property, even without the consent of all other co-owners. It reinforces the principle that tolerance of occupancy does not create a legal right, and the owner can demand the property’s vacation at any time.

Shared Land, Sole Action: Can One Owner Evict Uninvited Guests?

The case revolves around a land dispute in Talisay, Cebu, involving parcels of land co-owned by Juanito Borromeo, Sr. and others. Borromeo sought to expand his Borromeo Beach Resort, demanding that several individuals (the Resuenas and Rosario) vacate the portions they occupied. These occupants claimed they had permission from the other co-owners, specifically the Spouses Bascon and the heirs of Nicolas Maneja. The central legal question was whether Borromeo, as one of the co-owners, had the right to file an ejectment suit against these occupants, even if the other co-owners had allegedly granted them permission to stay.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) initially dismissed Borromeo’s complaint, reasoning that since the property was co-owned and not yet partitioned, Borromeo lacked a preferential right to possess the specific portions occupied by the defendants. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, citing Article 487 of the Civil Code, which empowers any co-owner to bring an action for ejectment. The RTC emphasized that such an action is deemed to benefit all co-owners.

The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC’s decision, leading the occupants to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. The occupants argued that Borromeo was estopped from filing the ejectment case due to a prior agreement regarding the portions of land each co-owner would occupy. They also claimed that their occupation constituted an executed contract, removing it from the Statute of Frauds’ requirements.

However, the Supreme Court found these arguments unpersuasive, emphasizing that the occupants’ claims hinged on factual assertions not definitively established in the lower courts. The Court reiterated that its role is primarily to review questions of law, not to re-evaluate factual findings already considered by the lower courts. Building on this principle, the Supreme Court affirmed Borromeo’s right to eject the occupants under Article 487 of the Civil Code. This article clearly states that “[a]ny one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.”

Article 487 of the Civil Code, which provides simply that “[a]ny one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment,” is a categorical and an unqualified authority in favor of respondent to evict petitioners from the portions of Lot. No. 2587.

The Court clarified that this provision allows a co-owner to act on behalf of all co-owners, protecting the collective interest in the property. This approach contrasts with earlier jurisprudence that required all co-owners to join in an ejectment suit. The Court highlighted that the occupants failed to demonstrate any legal basis for their continued occupation of the land. Mere tolerance by one co-owner does not create a binding right to occupancy. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of any written agreement or contract that would support the occupants’ claims.

The court also touched on the issue of reimbursement for improvements made on the property. The occupants argued that they should be compensated for the cost of constructing their houses, citing Article 546 of the Civil Code. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, explaining that reimbursement for improvements is only available to possessors in good faith – those who believe they own the land. Since the occupants were merely tolerated on the property, they could not be considered possessors in good faith.

The decision emphasizes the importance of establishing clear legal rights to property. Oral agreements or mere tolerance are insufficient to create a legally protected right to occupy land. Moreover, the Court highlighted the applicability of Article 1358 of the Civil Code, which requires that acts creating real rights over immovable property must appear in a public instrument. Therefore, the absence of any documented right of occupancy significantly weakened the petitioners’ case.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Resuena v. Court of Appeals reaffirms the right of a co-owner to bring an action for ejectment to protect the co-owned property. This decision underscores the limitations of permissive occupancy and the necessity of establishing clear legal rights to property. It also clarifies the scope of Article 487 of the Civil Code, solidifying a co-owner’s authority to act in the interest of the co-ownership. This ruling offers clarity and guidance for property disputes involving co-ownership, particularly in situations where unauthorized individuals occupy portions of the land. It emphasizes the importance of documenting property rights and the limitations of relying on mere tolerance or verbal agreements.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a co-owner of a property could file an action for ejectment against individuals occupying the property without the express consent of all co-owners. The Supreme Court affirmed that one co-owner can indeed file such an action.
What does Article 487 of the Civil Code say?	Article 487 of the Civil Code states that any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. This provision allows a co-owner to protect the shared property from unauthorized occupants.
Can a verbal agreement grant rights to occupy land?	Generally, no. The Supreme Court emphasized that verbal agreements are insufficient to establish real rights over immovable property. Article 1358 of the Civil Code generally requires that these rights be documented in a public instrument.
What is a ‘possessor in good faith’?	A possessor in good faith is someone who believes they have a valid claim to ownership of the property. They are entitled to reimbursement for useful improvements made on the land.
Are occupants by ‘tolerance’ considered possessors in good faith?	No, occupants by mere tolerance are not considered possessors in good faith. They occupy the property with the owner’s permission but without any legal right, and are not entitled to reimbursement for improvements.
What is the Statute of Frauds, and how does it relate to this case?	The Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. The occupants argued that their occupation was an executed contract, but the Court found no valid contract existed to begin with.
What does it mean to be ‘estopped’ from taking legal action?	Estoppel prevents a person from asserting a right that contradicts their previous actions or statements. The occupants argued Borromeo was estopped, but the Court found no basis for this claim.
What is the significance of a ‘public instrument’ in property law?	A public instrument is a document notarized by a public official, providing strong legal evidence of the agreement. Article 1358 of the Civil Code says acts that establish property rights must be in a public instrument.
Can a co-owner act on behalf of all other co-owners in an ejectment case?	Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that a co-owner can bring an ejectment action for the benefit of all co-owners, protecting the collective interest in the property.

The Resuena v. Court of Appeals case serves as a reminder of the importance of clearly defined property rights and the legal remedies available to protect those rights in co-ownership situations. It emphasizes that mere tolerance does not create a legal right to occupy property and reinforces the authority of a co-owner to act in the best interest of the co-ownership.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Tining Resuena, et al. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128338, March 28, 2005