TL;DR

The Supreme Court clarified that while co-owners have rights to common property, forcibly excluding another co-owner in prior possession constitutes forcible entry, even if both parties have ownership claims. This ruling means that even co-owners cannot take the law into their own hands and must respect due process. A co-owner who is forcibly evicted by another co-owner can file an ejectment suit to regain possession, underscoring that prior possession, regardless of ownership claims, is legally protected, and disputes must be resolved through proper legal channels, not self-help.

Dividing the Undivided: When Co-ownership Turns Contentious

The case of Perlita Mabalo vs. Heirs of Roman Babuyo delves into a common yet complex scenario in Philippine property law: disputes among co-owners, particularly heirs to an undivided estate. At the heart of the matter is a parcel of land in Misamis Oriental, inherited by Roman Babuyo’s numerous children. This land, still undivided, became the subject of contention when Perlita Mabalo purchased a portion from one heir, Segundina. Claiming her right as a new co-owner, Mabalo entered the property, constructed a fence, and demolished structures, effectively excluding the other heirs who were already in possession. This action led to a forcible entry case filed by the other heirs against Mabalo, escalating to the Supreme Court and raising a crucial question: Can a co-owner eject another co-owner from property held in common?

The legal framework governing this dispute is rooted in the principles of co-ownership under the Philippine Civil Code. Article 486 states, “Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights.” Furthermore, Article 487 explicitly allows any co-owner to bring an action in ejectment. However, jurisprudence has traditionally held that ejectment among co-owners is limited to cases where the purpose is to recognize co-ownership, not to exclude a co-owner who also has a right to possess.

The Supreme Court in Mabalo, however, nuanced this understanding. While acknowledging the established doctrine that a co-owner’s possession is generally not adverse to other co-owners, the Court emphasized that this right is not absolute. The critical factor is the manner of entry and possession. The Court underscored that even a co-owner cannot resort to force to assert their claim. Mabalo’s actions—constructing fences and demolishing structures—were deemed acts of force that disturbed the prior possession of the other heirs. This is despite Mabalo also having a right to the property as a co-owner through her purchase from Segundina. The Court cited Bunyi v. Factor, stating that “the act of going to the property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force… which is all that is necessary and sufficient to show that the action is based on the provisions of Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.”

The Court highlighted the purpose of ejectment proceedings: to prevent breaches of peace and uphold due process. It reiterated that even owners must respect prior possession and cannot take the law into their own hands. This principle extends even to informal settlers, lessees with expired contracts, and tenants – all are entitled to due process before eviction. The Supreme Court articulated a refined set of rules for ejectment suits between co-owners:

1. If a co-owner takes possession of a definite portion of the common property in the exercise of their right to possession as a co-owner, they may not be ejected as long as they recognize the co-ownership.
2. If a co-owner takes exclusive possession of a specific portion, excluding a co-owner in prior possession, ejectment is proper.
3. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff co-owner to show force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth in the defendant co-owner’s entry.
4. Failing to prove force, the plaintiff cannot exclude the defendant, as the latter is also a co-owner.

Applying these rules, the Court found Mabalo liable for forcible entry. The heirs of Babuyo had prior possession; Mabalo’s entry was forceful, depriving them of possession; and the action was filed within the prescriptive period. While Mabalo, as a buyer of a co-owner’s share, also became a co-owner, her forceful entry was unlawful. The Court, however, modified the lower courts’ decisions by deleting the award for rentals and attorney’s fees, recognizing that as a co-owner, Mabalo is not liable for rent, and the award of attorney’s fees lacked proper justification in the body of the lower court decisions.

This case underscores that co-ownership does not grant a license to disregard the rights of other co-owners or the principle of due process. It clarifies that while co-owners share rights to the property, the manner of exercising those rights is crucial. Forceful exclusion of a co-owner in prior possession is not permissible and will be addressed through ejectment, not to settle ownership, but to restore peaceable possession and uphold the rule of law.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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: Mabalo v. Heirs of Babuyo, G.R No. 238468, July 06, 2022