Can One Co-Owner File an Ejectment Case in the Philippines? Yes, Under Article 487

---

Owning property with siblings or relatives is common in the Philippines. But what happens when someone occupies that shared property without permission, and only one of the co-owners wants to take legal action? The good news: that single co-owner does not need the consent of the others to file an ejectment case.

The Supreme Court settled this question in a 2006 ruling, affirming that Article 487 of the Civil Code allows any one co-owner to bring an ejectment action. This ruling removes a major procedural hurdle and gives co-owners a practical way to protect shared property.

The Legal Foundation: Article 487 of the Civil Code

Article 487 of the Civil Code states, in no uncertain terms: "Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment."

This provision is a deliberate departure from older jurisprudence, which required all co-owners to join an ejectment suit. The old rule, reflected in earlier cases, created practical problems when co-owners were numerous, scattered, or simply disagreed with each other.

Ejectment is a summary proceeding to recover possession of real property. It covers two main actions:

• Forcible entry — when possession was taken illegally from the start.
• Unlawful detainer — when possession was initially lawful but became unlawful, such as when a lease expires or permission is withdrawn.

Article 487 applies to both. The Supreme Court, citing legal scholar Arturo Tolentino, explained that the provision allows a co-owner to file any type of possessory action without impleading the other co-owners, because the suit is understood to be for the collective benefit of all.

The Case: Mendoza v. Coronel

Maria Coronel, a co-owner of land in Bulacan, filed an unlawful detainer case against Spouses Mendoza, who were occupying the property rent-free. The Mendozas argued that Maria could not sue alone — all co-owners had to be included as plaintiffs.

The case traveled through three levels of courts:

1. Municipal Trial Court (MTC) — ruled in favor of Coronel, ordering the Mendozas to vacate and pay rent, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.
2. Regional Trial Court (RTC) — reversed, ruling that the MTC lacked jurisdiction because Coronel failed to include all co-owners as indispensable parties. The RTC relied on an uncorrected version of a prior Supreme Court ruling.
3. Court of Appeals (CA) — reversed the RTC, noting that an errata to that prior ruling clarified the matter. In its corrected form, the ruling aligned with Article 487, allowing a single co-owner to sue.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA. The Court reiterated that the controlling law is Article 487 of the Civil Code, which categorically states: "Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment."

The Attorney-in-Fact Issue

The Mendozas raised two additional arguments. First, they claimed that Coronel's attorney-in-fact, Juanito Coronel, lacked authority from all co-owners. The Court rejected this: since Article 487 empowers a single co-owner to sue, the attorney-in-fact only needs authorization from that co-owner.

Second, the Mendozas challenged the attorney-in-fact's certification against forum shopping. The Court held that a representative authorized to file the suit is considered a party to the case under the Rules of Court, and therefore may validly sign the certification.

Practical Implications for Co-Owners

This ruling has real-world consequences for property co-owners:

• No need to round up co-owners. A single co-owner can act alone, even if others are abroad, uncooperative, or cannot be located.
• Swift protection of shared property. Legal action need not wait for consensus. One co-owner can stop unlawful occupation before the situation worsens.
• Clearer legal standing. The ruling removes a common defense tactic — challenging the plaintiff's capacity to sue — in ejectment cases involving co-owned property.

Practical Takeaways

• A co-owner can file ejectment alone. Article 487 of the Civil Code authorizes any one co-owner to bring the action.
• Act promptly. Ejectment cases have strict deadlines. For unlawful detainer, the action must be filed within one year from the last demand to vacate.
• Use a valid Special Power of Attorney. If a co-owner is represented by an attorney-in-fact, that representative must have proper written authorization from the co-owner — not from all co-owners.
• File in the right court. Ejectment cases are filed in the Municipal Trial Court where the property is located.
• Consult a lawyer. While a co-owner can sue alone, proper procedure matters. A lawyer can ensure the complaint, certification against forum shopping, and other requirements are correctly prepared.

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