MANUEL T. GUIA VS. CA AND JOSE B.

ABEJO
GR NO. 120864 October 8, 2003
Facts: De Guia acquired possession of the entire fishpond area by virtue of a
document captioned Salin ng Pamumusisyong ng Palaisdaan (Lease
Contract) executed between him and the heirs of one of the co-owners,
Primitiva Lejano. The lease contract was executed with the knowledge and
consent of Teofilo Abejo, sole heir of the other co-owner, Lorenza Abejo.
Teofilo Abejo acquired Lorenza Abejos undivided share in the fishpond by
intestate succession. Teofilo Abejo, now deceased, sold his individed share
to his son Jose Abejo. De Guia continues to possess the entire fishpond and
derived income therein despite the expiration of the lease contract and
several demands to vacate by Teofilo Abejo and by his successor-in-interest,
Jose Abejo. Abejo filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages
against De Guia. However, Abejo failed to present evidence of the judicial or
extrajudicial partition of the fishpond.
Issue: Whether a co-owner can file ejectment case against a co-owner?
Whether action for recovery of possession was the proper recourse?
Held: Under Article 484, there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of
an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. A co-owner of an
undivided parcel of land is an owner of the whole, and over the whole he
exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a
portion which is truly abstract. Article 487 also provides that anyone of the
co-owners may bring an action for ejectment. This article covers all kinds of
actions for the recovery of possession. Any co-owner may file an action
under Article 487 not only against a third person, but also against another
co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of
the property. However, the only purpose of the action is to obtain recognition
of the co-ownership. The plaintiff cannot seek exclusion of the defendant
from the property because as a co-owner he has a right of possession. The
plaintiff cannot recover any material or determinate part of the property.
Since co-ownership subsists between Abejo and De Guia, judicial or
extrajudicial partition is the proper recourse. The effect of an action for
recovery hen co-ownership still exists is recognition of the co-ownership.
Thus, judicial or extrajudicial partition is necessary to effect physical division
of the fishpond between them and the proper forum for accounting the
profits received by De Guia from the fishpond. However, as a necessary
consequence of such recognition, Abejo shall exercise an equal right to
possess, use and enjoy the entire fishpond.