Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I hope you can shed some light on a rather stressful family situation my siblings and I are facing. We inherited a small residential lot in San Juan City from our parents many years ago. Since we all live elsewhere, we allowed our distant cousin, Pedro, and his family to stay on a portion of the lot back in the late 90s. There was no formal contract, just a verbal agreement based on goodwill because they needed a place to stay. They eventually built a small house there made of mixed materials.

Recently, my siblings and I decided it’s time to sell the entire property as none of us plan to use it, and we need the funds. We politely informed Pedro about our plans and asked him and his family to vacate within six months. However, Pedro is refusing to leave. He claims our late father verbally promised him that specific portion of the lot, or at least the right to buy it someday, though nothing was ever written down. He also insists that since he built the house, he has rights to stay. To complicate things, sometimes he mentions his eldest son technically owns the house materials because he paid for some renovations.

We really want to avoid a bigger conflict, but we need to proceed with the sale. My question is, do all of us siblings need to file the ejectment case together? I currently live abroad, and getting everyone to sign off on legal documents is difficult. Can I file the case on behalf of all of us? Also, who should we name as defendants? Just Pedro, or also his wife and adult son who live with him? Does it matter who supposedly owns the house they built? We are confused about our next steps. Thank you so much for your guidance.

Respectfully,
Lourdes Macapagal

Dear Lourdes Macapagal,

Thank you for reaching out. It’s understandable that you’re feeling stressed about this situation involving your family’s property and your cousin’s refusal to vacate. Dealing with property disputes, especially involving relatives, can be emotionally taxing.

To address your core concern: Generally, under Philippine law, any one of the co-owners of a property can file an action for ejectment (like unlawful detainer) without needing to include all other co-owners as plaintiffs. This action is deemed to be for the benefit of all co-owners. The case should primarily be directed against the individuals who are actually occupying the property and refusing to leave after a formal demand has been made, especially when their initial stay was based merely on tolerance.

Navigating Your Rights as a Co-Owner: Ejecting Occupants by Tolerance

Your situation involves several key legal principles under Philippine property law, primarily concerning co-ownership and ejectment based on tolerance. As co-owners, you and your siblings share rights over the undivided property inherited from your parents. When someone occupies a property without a contract (like a lease) but simply with the owner’s permission or tolerance, their stay is precarious. This means the owner can withdraw that permission at any time.

The law explicitly allows a single co-owner to initiate an ejectment suit. This is clearly stated in the Civil Code:

ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this provision to cover various actions for recovering possession, including unlawful detainer, which seems applicable here since Pedro’s stay was initially permitted. The rationale is practical and beneficial: “A co-owner may bring such an action, without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.” Therefore, you, as one of the co-owners, can likely file the complaint yourself, provided you state that the action is intended to recover possession for the benefit of the entire co-ownership, not just for yourself.

The nature of Pedro’s possession appears to be based on tolerance. His initial entry was permitted by your family. When possession is merely tolerated, the occupant is bound by an implied promise to vacate the premises upon demand.

Well settled is the rule that a person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.

His refusal to leave after you formally asked him transforms his previously tolerated possession into unlawful detainer. The claim about a verbal promise from your late father is generally difficult to prove and may not override the registered ownership and the nature of his tolerated stay, especially in a summary ejectment proceeding which focuses primarily on physical possession (possession de facto). The issue of who owns the house built on the lot is also, strictly speaking, separate from the issue of who has the better right to possess the land. While Pedro might have rights related to the improvements (the house) under rules on builders in good or bad faith (Articles 448-456, Civil Code), this is typically resolved in a different legal action, not necessarily in the summary ejectment case itself. The primary defendants in an ejectment case should be the individuals actually possessing the land unlawfully.

In an action for unlawful detainer, the real party-in-interest as party-defendant is the person who is in possession of the property without the benefit of any contract of lease and only upon the tolerance and generosity of its owner.

Therefore, you should name Pedro and any other adult members of his family who are actually residing on the property and refusing to vacate as defendants. Their physical occupation is what makes them the necessary parties to be sued for recovery of physical possession of the land. Whether Pedro or his son owns the materials used for the house does not change the fact that they are occupying your co-owned land without legal right after the demand to vacate was made.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Formal Demand: Ensure you have sent a formal, written demand letter to Pedro and his family to vacate the premises. This is a jurisdictional requirement for an unlawful detainer case. Keep proof of receipt.
• Barangay Conciliation: Before filing in court, you generally need to undergo Barangay conciliation proceedings since you and your cousin live in related circumstances (though specific addresses matter). Check if this is mandatory in your case. An amicable settlement, if reached and complied with, can resolve the issue. If not, a Certificate to File Action will be issued.
• Filing as Co-Owner: You can initiate the ejectment complaint as a co-owner. Clearly state in the complaint that you are filing on behalf of and for the benefit of all co-owners of the property.
• Identify Defendants: Name Pedro and all other adult occupants (like his wife and adult son, if applicable) who are actually residing on the property as defendants in the ejectment suit.
• Focus on Land Possession: The ejectment suit’s primary goal is to recover physical possession of the land. Issues regarding the house ownership or reimbursement for improvements are typically tackled separately, though they might be raised as defenses.
• Gather Evidence: Prepare documents proving your co-ownership (e.g., land title, tax declaration in your parents’ or your names as heirs) and evidence of the tolerated possession and the formal demand to vacate.
• Legal Representation: While you can file as a co-owner, navigating the court procedures for ejectment can be complex. It is highly advisable to hire a lawyer to prepare and file the complaint and represent the co-owners in court.
• Potential Defenses: Be prepared for Pedro to raise the verbal agreement or his construction of the house as defenses. Your lawyer can address these within the context of the ejectment suit or advise on potential separate actions if needed.

Dealing with these situations requires careful legal steps. Recovering possession through ejectment is a summary proceeding designed for relatively quick resolution, focusing primarily on the right to physical possession.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.