Occupants by tolerance

Can a suit for recovery of possession of a land be filed by only one of the co-owners without being joined by the other co-owners? Who are entitled to protection against eviction and demolition afforded by the Urban Land Reform under P.D. 1517 and P.D. 2016 and R.A. 7279? These are the questions resolved in this case of Luigi and Tita.

Luigi was one of the heirs and co-owners of several parcels of land located in Quezon City (Lots 2, 3, and 6 Block 4) each containing an area of 1,000 square meters or a total of 3,000 square meters, covered by TCT No. 41698. Tita on the other hand acquired ownership of 200 square meters of Lot 2, 250 square meters of Lot 3 and the full 1,000 square meters of Lot 6 by virtue of decision rendered by the RTC dated August 30, 1974, although the Title remained in the names of Luigi and the other heirs.

The said lands were occupied by Jaime, Eddie and 12 other individuals and their families who entered the same on various dates in 1973 through stealth and strategy and had since occupied the same. Despite demands made by Luigi and Tita sometime in March 1993, Jaime, Eddie and the other occupants refused to vacate the premises.

Thus Luigi and Tita filed a complaint in the RTC for recovery of possession of said land against all the occupants thereof led by Jaime and Eddie. The latter however contended that Luigi had no personality to file the suit as he was only one of the co-owners owning a small portion thereof while Tita did not appear to be its registered owner. Furthermore they asserted that the property had already been proclaimed by the QC Government as an area for priority development under PDs 1517 and 2016 which prohibits eviction of lawful tenants and demolition of their homes.

The RTC however did not agree with Jaime and the other occupants and rendered a decision in favor of Luigi and Tita. The occupants led by Jaime et. al questioned the said decision on appeal reiterating the same arguments raised before the RTC. Were the occupants correct?

No. Luigi is a named co-owner of the property in TCT 41698 together with his two other brothers and a sister. Tita on the other hand acquired ownership of portions of the property totaling 1,450 square meters pursuant to a RTC decision in another case and several documents implementing it.

Under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any one of the co-owners may bring any kind of action for recovery of co-owned properties since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners. It covers all kinds of action for recovery of possession, i.e., forcible entry and illegal detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion publiciana) and recovery of ownership (accion reinvindicacion). Only one co-owner, 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.

With regards to Tita, the fact that the documents evidencing the transfer of ownership in her favor to implement the RTC decision is not inscribed in the TCT does not make it any less valid. Evidently while the title is yet to be registered in Tita’s name, for all intents and purposes, however, the subject property is already owned by her. The heirs are merely naked owners of the portion of the property already transferred to her, while she is already the beneficial or equitable owner thereof; and the right to the gains, rewards and advantages generated by the property pertains to her.

The protective mantle of P.Ds. 1517 and 2016 extends only to landless urban families who are “tenants” or rightful occupants of land and its structures but does not include those whose presence on the land is merely tolerated and without the benefit of contract, those who entered the land by force or deceit, or those whose possession is under litigation. Occupants of the land whose presence therein is devoid of any legal authority or those whose contracts of lease are already terminated or have expired or whose possession is under litigation are not considered tenant (Section 3 (f) P.D. 1517). In this case the occupation of the land by mere tolerance has been terminated. Hence the Jaime and the other occupants do not qualify as “tenants” covered by this social legislation (Estreller et. al vs. Ysmael and Alvarez, G.R. 170264, March 13, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]