Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 250 views

    Digest 02 Estreller V Ysmael

    Uploaded by

    Rafael Soro
    Respondents filed a case to recover possession of disputed property from petitioners, claiming ownership. Petitioners denied the claims. The RTC and CA both ruled in favor of respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that respondents Ysmael and Alvarez were both real parties in interest - Ysmael as a named co-owner on the title and Alvarez as a buyer of a portion. As co-owners, any one of them could file suit on behalf of all to recover jointly owned property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest 02 Estreller V Ysmael

    Uploaded by

    Rafael Soro
    250 views1 page
    Respondents filed a case to recover possession of disputed property from petitioners, claiming ownership. Petitioners denied the claims. The RTC and CA both ruled in favor of respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that respondents Ysmael and Alvarez were both real parties in interest - Ysmael as a named co-owner on the title and Alvarez as a buyer of a portion. As co-owners, any one of them could file suit on behalf of all to recover jointly owned property.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Digest 02 Estreller v Ysmael

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondents filed a case to recover possession of disputed property from petitioners, claiming ownership. Petitioners denied the claims. The RTC and CA both ruled in favor of respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that respondents Ysmael and Alvarez were both real parties in interest - Ysmael as a named co-owner on the title and Alvarez as a buyer of a portion. As co-owners, any one of them could file suit on behalf of all to recover jointly owned property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    250 views1 page

    Digest 02 Estreller V Ysmael

    Uploaded by

    Rafael Soro
    Respondents filed a case to recover possession of disputed property from petitioners, claiming ownership. Petitioners denied the claims. The RTC and CA both ruled in favor of respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that respondents Ysmael and Alvarez were both real parties in interest - Ysmael as a named co-owner on the title and Alvarez as a buyer of a portion. As co-owners, any one of them could file suit on behalf of all to recover jointly owned property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JAMES ESTRELLER, EDUARDOCULIANAN, GREG CARROS,

    RAQUEL YEE, JOSELITO


    PENILLA, LORNA DOTE,
    CRESENCIANA CLEOPAS, TRINIDAD TEVES, SONIA PENILLA,
    ANITA GOMINTONG, CHING DIONESIO, MARIBEL MANALO,
    DESIRES HUERTO and RAYMUNDO CORTES VS. LUIS MIGUEL
    YSMAEL and CRISTETA L. SANTOS-ALVAREZ
    March 13, 2009 ; G.R. No. 170264
    PONENTE: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
    FACTS: Respondents filed with the RTC of Quezon City, a case for
    Recovery of Possession against petitioners, claiming ownership of the property
    subject of dispute.
    Petitioners denied respondents' allegations. According to them,
    respondent Luis Miguel Ysmael (Ysmael) had no personality to file the suit
    since he only owned a small portion of the property, while respondent Cristeta
    Santos-Alvarez (Alvarez) did not appear to be a registered owner
    thereof. Petitioners also contended that their occupation of the property was
    lawful, having leased the same from the Magdalena Estate, and later on from
    Alvarez. Lastly, petitioners asserted that the property has already been
    proclaimed by the Quezon City Government as an Area for Priority
    Development under P. D. Nos. 1517 and 2016, which prohibits the eviction of
    lawful tenants and demolition of their homes.
    After trial, the RTC rendered its decision in favor of
    respondents. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a
    Decision dismissed their appeal and affirmed in toto the RTC Decision.
    ISSUE: Whether or not respondents Ysmael and Alvarez are both real
    parties in interest who would be benefited or injured by the judgment
    or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
    RULING: YES. Respondents are real parties-in-interest in the suit below and
    may, therefore, commence the complaint for accion publiciana. On the part of
    Ysmael, he is a named co-owner of the subject property under TCT No. 41698,
    together with Julian Felipe Ysmael, Teresa Ysmael, and Ramon Ysmael. For

    her part, Alvarez was a buyer of a portion of the property, as confirmed in


    several documents.
    Recently, in Wee v. De Castro, the Court, citing Article 487 of the
    Civil Code, reasserted the rule that any one of the co-owners may bring any
    kind of action for the recovery of co-owned properties since the suit is
    presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners. The Court also
    stressed that Article 487 covers all kinds of action for the recovery of
    possession, i.e., forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal),
    recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion
    de reivindicacion), thus:
    In the more recent case of Carandang v. Heirs of De
    Guzman,this Court declared that a co-owner is not even a
    necessary party to an action for ejectment, for complete relief
    can be afforded even in his absence, thus:
    In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are
    real parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the
    Civil Code and the relevant jurisprudence, any one of them
    may bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of coowned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners,
    namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of
    the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto.
    The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are
    not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be
    afforded in the suit even without their participation, since the
    suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all coowners. (Emphasis supplied)

    DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for


    lack of merit. The Decision dated March 14, 2005 of the Court of Appeals
    is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

    You might also like