Sering v. Plazo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Alfredo Sering filed a forcible entry suit against respondents Restituto Plazo and Gertrudes Suan. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of Sering. Procedural History: The Plazos appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). In the CFI, the Plazos learned that Sering was a co-owner and moved to implead the other co-owners, asserting they were indispensable parties. The CFI agreed and ordered Sering to amend his complaint. Sering demurred, citing Article 487 of the Civil Code, which allows any co-owner to bring an ejectment action. The Plazos contended this provision did not apply to forcible entry actions. Due to Sering's failure to amend the complaint, the CFI dismissed the case and denied his motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Sering sought the nullification and reversal of the CFI's orders of dismissal and denial of reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the forcible entry case filed by a co-owner. Whether Article 487 of the Civil Code applies to actions of forcible entry.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the orders of dismissal and denial of reconsideration, remanding the case to the Regional Trial Court for resolution of the appeal from the inferior court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the forcible entry case filed by a co-owner: The Supreme Court held that the orders of dismissal were tainted by serious error and should be reversed. The Court reiterated settled principles regarding the right of a co-owner to bring an ejectment action. The dismissal was based on a misapprehension of the law concerning the joinder of parties in such actions. The Court found no reason to depart from established jurisprudence on the matter. On the issue of whether Article 487 of the Civil Code applies to actions of forcible entry: The Supreme Court affirmed that Article 487 of the Civil Code applies to actions of forcible entry. The Court cited its ruling in Vencilao v. Camarenta, which held that any co-owner may bring an action in ejectment, and this term includes suits of forcible entry. The Court emphasized that in forcible entry actions, the primary issue is prior physical possession. Therefore, a co-owner who was in actual possession can file the complaint alone. The Court found no substantial reason to modify or overrule this established doctrine.
Main Doctrine
Under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any co-owner of an immovable property may bring an action in ejectment, including a suit for forcible entry, without joining the other co-owners, as the suit is deemed instituted for the benefit of all.