Mabalo v. Heirs of Babuyo
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Roman Babuyo owned a 5,599-square-meter parcel of land. Upon his death, his heirs took physical possession and introduced improvements. Segundina Babuyo, claiming inheritance from her father Rufino (another heir of Roman), sold a 364-square-meter portion of the land to Perlita Mabalo. On June 3, 2014, Mabalo prevented the heirs' laborers from trimming a tree, constructed a fence with a "No Trespassing" sign, and demolished two houses on the property. The heirs of Roman filed a complaint for forcible entry against Mabalo. Procedural History: The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in favor of the heirs, finding that they had prior physical possession and were deprived of it by Mabalo's actions (fencing, demolition). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MCTC ruling. The Court of Appeals (CA) also affirmed, holding that the land remained undivided and co-owned, and Mabalo only acquired Segundina's pro indiviso rights as a co-owner. The Petition: Mabalo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondents failed to prove the requisites for forcible entry, that Segundina had prior possession evidenced by tax receipts, that some co-heirs had sold portions of their shares, and that her entry was a valid exercise of her right as an owner. The respondents countered that Mabalo admitted not being in possession prior to June 3, 2014, that they had prior physical possession, and that Mabalo's exclusion of them amounted to force.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial courts' decision holding petitioner liable for forcible entry and ordering her to vacate and pay rentals; specifically, whether Mabalo's actions constituted forcible entry given the context of co-ownership. Whether a co-owner can evict another co-owner from a property held in common through an action for ejectment; and the propriety of the awards of rent and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision with modification, ordering petitioner Perlita Mabalo to vacate the portion of land she bought from Segundina Babuyo Fernandez and remove improvements thereon. The awards for rent and attorney's fees were deleted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forcible entry and co-ownership: The Court reiterated that upon a decedent's death, the whole estate is owned in common by the heirs before partition. Thus, Mabalo, as a buyer of a portion from a co-owner (Segundina), stepped into Segundina's shoes as a co-owner. While a co-owner has the right to sell their undivided interest, they cannot sell a definite portion of the land without the consent of other co-owners. The sale to Mabalo was effective only to the extent of Segundina's pro indiviso share. The Court found that Mabalo's actions of fencing the property, demolishing houses, and excluding the respondents constituted forcible entry, as she deprived the respondents, who had prior physical possession, of their use of the property through acts implying force. The Court emphasized that the manner of exercising the right of possession is crucial, and Mabalo's actions were prejudicial to the co-ownership and breached her fiduciary duty as a co-owner. The Court clarified that possession in ejectment cases refers to physical or material possession, not legal possession. The purpose of ejectment is to prevent breaches of peace and criminal disorder by precluding individuals from taking the law into their own hands. Even owners cannot simply wrest possession from whoever is in actual occupation without proper legal recourse. The law protects prior possession, and a party who can prove prior possession can recover possession even against the owner if the owner employed force or intimidation. On the right of co-owners to bring ejectment suits and the awards of rent and attorney's fees: Article 487 of the Civil Code allows any co-owner to bring an action in ejectment not only against third parties but also against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership. However, the purpose in such cases is to recognize the co-ownership, and the plaintiff cannot exclude the defendant co-owner or recover a determinate part of the property because the defendant also has a right to possess it. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant co-owner repudiated the co-ownership or acted in a manner amounting to an ouster of the other co-owners. In this case, Mabalo's acts of exclusion and demolition were deemed to have amounted to an ouster, justifying the ejectment suit. The Court deleted the award of rent because there was no evidence on record to support the fair rental value, and it found it absurd to order a co-owner to pay rent on a property she is entitled to enjoy. Similarly, the award of attorney's fees was deleted for lack of explicit legal basis stated in the body of the decisions of the lower courts, as required by jurisprudence. The Court stressed that not every winning party is automatically entitled to attorney's fees, and the legal reason for the award must be clearly stated.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner who takes exclusive possession of a specific portion of common property, excluding another co-owner who is in prior possession, can be ejected through a forcible entry suit, provided the plaintiff proves the use of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth in the dispossession. The right of a co-owner to possess the property is limited by the similar rights of other co-owners, and the manner of exercising this right is crucial.