De Vera v. Manzanero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Bernardo A. De Vera, Sr. acquired a property from the National Housing Authority (NHA). He died in 1993 without completing payment. In 1995, Virgilio Manzanero, allegedly on the strength of a waiver of rights from Bernardo's widow, Emelie Moreno Vda. De Vera, forcibly took possession of the property, destroying existing structures. Petitioners, Bernardo's children, endured threats and intimidation and filed various complaints for destruction of property and harassment. In 2014, after petitioners paid the outstanding balance to the NHA, they filed a complaint for recovery of possession against respondents. Procedural History: Respondents claimed that Emelie sold the entire property to them in 1994, attaching an Affidavit of Waiver. They moved to dismiss the complaint for non-compliance with the condition precedent of barangay conciliation, which was denied. The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling that the appropriate remedy was an action for judicial partition, not recovery of possession, as petitioners and Emelie were co-owners. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's dismissal, agreeing that an action for partition was the proper recourse. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners argue that the CA erred in ruling that the proper remedy was an action for partition, asserting that their action for recovery of possession was proper to determine the validity of respondents' possession. They contend that no co-ownership exists between them and respondents, making a partition action paradoxical. They also argue that the Affidavit of Waiver is void and unenforceable, and that even as co-owners, they can file an action for ejectment against a co-owner asserting exclusive ownership.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in ruling that the proper remedy is to file an action for partition. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in ruling that respondents validly possessed the subject property.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 16, 2017 and the Resolution dated June 16, 2017 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents are ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY VACATE the property and RETURN ITS POSSESSION to petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the proper remedy: The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in dismissing the petitioners' complaint for recovery of possession and mandating an action for partition. An action for partition under Rule 69 is typically brought by a claimant who recognizes the defendant as a co-owner, which is contrary to the petitioners' stance that no co-ownership exists between them and the respondents. Furthermore, while an action for partition involves determining the existence of co-ownership, it is not the sole avenue for such determination. The Court clarified that a co-owner may file an action to recover possession against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership, with the primary effect being the recognition of the co-ownership. However, the court in such an action cannot proceed with the actual partitioning of the property, which requires a separate action for partition. The CA's dismissal was premature as it did not rule on the validity of the Affidavit of Waiver and the existence of co-ownership. On the issue of respondents' valid possession: The Court found that petitioners established their ownership over the property through inheritance from Bernardo, whose account with the NHA was fully paid. Respondents failed to present evidence to support any supposed title over the property, as their motion to file supplemental motion to dismiss was denied, and the Affidavit of Waiver was not formally offered in evidence. Therefore, respondents' possession was not valid. The Court reiterated that any co-owner may bring an action in ejectment under Article 487 of the Civil Code, which covers all actions for recovery of possession, and this right is not subject to the requirement of prior partition. The complaint filed by petitioners was for the benefit of all co-owners, seeking to recover possession which would redound to their benefit. The Court concluded that petitioners were able to establish their ownership and right to possess the property, and thus, respondents were ordered to vacate and return possession.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner may file an action to recover possession against a co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of the property, and such action serves to recognize the co-ownership, but the court in such an action cannot proceed with the actual partitioning of the property, for which a separate action for partition is necessary.