FACTS

De Castro alleged that they are the registered owners of the two-storey building. (P9K
per month). Both parties agreed that effective 1 October 2001, the rental payment shall
be increased from P9K to P15K. Wee failed to pay the increase on rent.
The rental dispute was brought to the Barangay. Since they failed to reach an amicable
settlement, a Certificate was issued. George de Castro, together with his siblings and co-
owners, Annie de Castro, Felomina Peaches de Castro Uban and Jesus de Castro, filed
the Complaint for ejectment before the MTC.
Although the Complaint stated that it was being filed by all of the resps:
· Verification and the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping were signed by George de
Castro alone.
· He subsequently attached the SPAs executed by his sisters Annie and Felomina
wee’s defenses
· no agreement between the parties to increase the rents demand for an increase
was exorbitant
· Resps failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of conciliation before
the Barangay Lupon prior to the filing before the courts
· MTC lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment suit, since resps' Complaint was
devoid of any allegation that there was an "unlawful withholding" of the subject
property by the pet.
lower courts
MTC dismissed the case for failure to comply with the prior conciliation requirement
before the Barangay Lupon.
RTC affirmed the dismissal. Since no concession was reached by the parties to increase
such amount to P15K, pet cannot be faulted for paying only the originally agreed upon
monthly rentals.
Resps' failure to refer the matter to the Barangay court for conciliation process barred
the ejectment case, conciliation before the Lupon being a condition sine qua non in the
filing of ejectment suits.
The allegation in the Complaint was flawed, since resps failed to allege that there was
an "unlawful withholding" taking out from the purview of an action for unlawful
detainer.
Complaint failed to comply with the rule that a co-owner could not maintain an action
without joining all the other co-owners.
CA denied the MR interposed by pet for lack of merit.
issues/ruling
WON an action for ejectment will prosper without joining all other co-owners
ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
This article covers all kinds of action for the recovery of possession:
· forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal),
· recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and
· recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion).

Professor Arturo M. Tolentino: 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.
Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman: 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: All co-
owners are real parties in interest. However, pursuant to NCC 487, any one of them may
bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned 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 co-owners.
there’s spa anyway
Annie and Felomina each executed a SPA, giving George the authority to initiate the
case.
A power of attorney is an instrument in writing by which one person, as principal,
appoints another as his agent and confers upon him the authority to perform certain
specified acts or kinds of acts on behalf of the principal.
authority to sign the Verification and the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
Mendoza v. Coronel: The execution of the certification against forum shopping by the
attorney-in-fact in the case at bar is not a violation of the requirement that the parties
must personally sign the same.
Failure by George to attach the SPAs is innocuous, since it is undisputed that he was
granted by his sisters the authority to file the action for ejectment against pet prior to
the institution of the case.
Torres Peaches v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation: the personal signing
of the verification requirement was deemed substantially complied with when 2/ 25 real
parties-in-interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to
the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it.
WON failure to allege “unlawful withoulding” is fatal to the cause of action
NO, what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over
it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.
Defendant's possession was originally lawful but ceased to be so upon the expiration of
his right to possess. Hence, the phrase "unlawful withholding" has been held to imply
possession on the part of defendant,, having no other source than a contract, express or
implied, and which later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant.
Barba v. CA: although the phrase "unlawfully withholding" was not actually used in her
complaint, the Court held that her allegations amounted to an unlawful withholding of
the subject property by therein private resps, because they continuously refused to
vacate the premises even after notice and demand.
failure of the counsel to attach official receipt of his ibp dues
Moot and academic, since resps' counsel has already duly complied therewith.
BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM
Pet: Certification to file action issued by the Barangay Lupon appended to the resps'
Complaint merely referred to the issue of rental increase and not the matter of
ejectment.
The barangay justice system was established primarily as a means of easing up the
congestion of cases in the judicial courts. The barangay courts is essentially a
compulsory arbitration in character. To ensure this objective, Section 6 of PD 1508
requires the parties to undergo a conciliation process as a precondition to filing a
complaint in court subject to certain exceptions. PD No. 1508 is now incorporated in
Republic Act No. 7160 (The Local Government Code), which took effect on 1 January
1992.
While it is true that the Certification refers only to rental increase and not to the
ejectment of pet from the subject property, the submission of the same for conciliation
before the Barangay Lupon constitutes sufficient compliance with the provisions of the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law. Given the particular circumstances of the case at bar,
the conciliation proceedings for the amount of monthly rental should logically and
reasonably include also the matter of the possession of the property subject of the
rental, the lease agreement, and the violation of the terms thereof.
The contract of lease between the parties did not stipulate a fixed period. Hence, the
parties agreed to the payment of rentals on a monthly basis. On this score, NCC 1687[1]
The period of such lease is deemed terminated at the end of each month. Without a
lease contract, pet has no right of possession to the subject property and must vacate
the same.
Lessor's right to rescind the contract of lease for non-payment of the demanded
increased rental was recognized by this Court in Chua v. Victorio::
Payment of the rent is one of a lessee's statutory obligations, and, upon non-payment
by pets of the increased rental in Sept 1994, the lessor acquired the right to avail of any
of the three remedies outlined above. (Emphasis supplied.)
Pet is liable for the payment of back rentals, attorney's fees and cost of the suit. Resps
must be duly indemnified for the loss of income from the subject property on account of
pet's refusal to vacate the leased premises.
CA AFFIRMED in toto.