SERING v PLAZO all deliberate dispatch, of the respondents' appeal from the judgment of the inferior

Heading in Syllabus | Sept. 29, 1988 | J. Narvasa court. This Resolution is immediately executory.

Nature of Case:
Digest maker: Marielle Reynoso NOTE:
SUMMARY: Spouses Plazo are saying that Sering cannot file a forcible entry suit
without the rest of his co-owners.
DOCTRINE: Under Art 487 of NCC, any of the co-owners may bring the action,...in
forcible entry and detainer actions the matter to be determined is simply the
question of prior physical possession. It having been alleged in the complaint that
the plaintiff was in actual possession of the properties, certainly the plaintiff alone,
who was in actual possession, could file the complaint.

FACTS:
● Alfredo Sering filed a forcible entry suit against spouses Restituto Plazo and
Gertrudes Suan with the MTC of del Carmen, Surigao del Norte. MTC ruled
in Sering’s favor.
● Spouses Plazo appealed to CFI Surigao del Norte, where they learned that
the property subject of the suit was not owned solely by Sering but was
owned in common by him and others.
● Plazos moved for the impleading of the other co-owners as parties plaintiff,
on the theory that they were indispensable parties. Court agreed.
● Sering: under the law anyone of the co-owners could bring suit for
ejectment without joining the others.
● Plazos: provision invoked by Sering had no application to forcible entry
actions, but only to suits of unlawful detainer.
● Because Sering failed to comply with the Court’s order for amendment of
the complaint, the court dismissed his complaint. Also his MR.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. W/N the co-owners are indispensable parties to the forcible entry suit
● Under Art 487 of NCC, any of the co-owners may bring the action,...in
forcible entry and detainer actions the matter to be determined is simply
the question of prior physical possession. It having been alleged in the
complaint that the plaintiff was in actual possession of the properties,
certainly the plaintiff alone, who was in actual possession, could file the
complaint.
● Any of the co-owners of an immovable may bring an action in ejectment. A
co-owner may thus bring an ejectment action without joining the other co-
owners, the suit being deemed instituted for the benefit of all.
● “Action in ejectment” = includes a suit of forcible entry (detentacion) or
unlawful detainer (desahucio).

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the challenged Orders dismissing the petitioner's complaint for

ejectment and denying reconsideration of the dismissal decree are REVERSED AND
SET ASIDE, and the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for resolution, with