Co-Ownership and Ejectment: When a Co-Owner Can Be Evicted for Forcible Entry

The Supreme Court recently clarified an important question in property law: can one co-owner evict another co-owner from property they own in common? In Mabalo v. Heirs of Roman Babuyo (G.R. No. 238468, July 6, 2022), the Court ruled that a co-owner who forcibly takes exclusive possession of a specific portion of common property may be ejected through an action for forcible entry. The decision balances the rights of co-owners to possess common property against their duty to respect the same rights of their fellow co-owners.

The Facts of the Case

Roman Babuyo owned a 5,599-square-meter parcel of land in Misamis Oriental. After his death, his heirs possessed and introduced improvements on the property, which remained undivided. Later, the heirs discovered that Roman had another heir, Rufino, whose daughter Segundina claimed a share in the property. Segundina then sold a 364-square-meter portion to Perlita Mabalo.

When Mabalo entered the property, she constructed a fence with a "No Trespassing" sign, demolished two houses, and pruned plants on the lot. The heirs of Roman filed a complaint for forcible entry against her. The municipal trial court ruled in favor of the heirs, ordering Mabalo to vacate, remove improvements, and pay rentals. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals affirmed. Mabalo elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether a co-owner can evict another co-owner from property held in common through an action for ejectment.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that Mabalo was liable for forcible entry. The Court explained several key principles.

First, under Article 493 of the Civil Code, each co-owner has full ownership of their undivided share and may sell it. However, before partition, a co-owner cannot sell a definite portion of the common property without the consent of the other co-owners. What can be sold is only the ideal or abstract share. When a co-owner sells a specific portion anyway, the sale remains valid but only to the extent of the seller's pro-indiviso share, subject to the outcome of the partition. The buyer steps into the seller's shoes as a co-owner.

Second, co-owners have joint ownership of the common property. Their relationship is fiduciary in character—each co-owner is a trustee for the others. A co-owner's possession of the common property is both a right and an obligation. While each co-owner may use the property, this right is limited by the similar right of other co-owners. No co-owner can devote common property to their exclusive use to the prejudice of the co-ownership.

Third, under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any co-owner may bring an action for ejectment. This applies not only against third persons but also against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of the property. However, the purpose of such an action is limited to obtaining recognition of the co-ownership. The plaintiff cannot exclude the defendant from the property or recover a determinate part of it, because the defendant, as a co-owner, also has a right to possess the common property.

The Court emphasized that the manner of taking possession matters. Mabalo forcibly excluded the heirs from using the specific portion she claimed. She took the law into her own hands instead of respecting their prior physical possession. Even if she had a right to possess the property as a co-owner, she violated the statutory limitations on that right and breached her fiduciary duties.

The Court also cited Article 539 of the Civil Code, which provides that every possessor has a right to be respected in their possession. If disturbed, they shall be protected or restored to possession through the means established by law. The law endows every possessor with this right regardless of the character of their possession, provided they have priority in time.

Practical Takeaways

• A co-owner who buys a specific portion of undivided property becomes a co-owner of the entire property, not the exclusive owner of that portion. The sale is effective only to the extent of the seller's undivided share, subject to partition.

• Co-owners cannot take the law into their own hands. Even if a co-owner believes they have a right to possess a portion of the common property, they cannot forcibly exclude other co-owners. The proper remedy is to file the appropriate legal action.

• Forcible entry requires prior physical possession and deprivation through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. The key is not whether the defendant has a right to possess, but the manner by which they exercised that right.

• A co-owner can file an ejectment suit against another co-owner, but only to compel recognition of the co-ownership. The plaintiff cannot exclude the defendant or recover a definite portion of the property.

• Before partition, no co-owner can claim title to any definite portion of the property. The remedy for determining each co-owner's share is partition, not self-help.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.