Short answer. Yes. Article 487 of the Civil Code allows any single co-owner to bring an ejectment action without joining the other co-owners as plaintiffs. Because each co-owner has a right to the whole property as against third persons, the action benefits all co-owners even when only one files it.
What the law says
Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
Civil Code, Article 487 — Ejectment by a Co-owner. Read the full provision →
The rule and why it exists
Article 487 of the Civil Code is brief but important: "Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment." The rationale is that co-ownership gives each co-owner a right to possess the entire property — not merely a fractional physical portion. When a third party unlawfully occupies or withholds possession, any co-owner is aggrieved by that intrusion, because it interferes with the collective right to possess. Requiring all co-owners to agree before anyone can file would effectively paralyze the remedy, particularly in family disputes where some co-owners may be unavailable, unwilling, or even in sympathy with the occupant.
You do not need the other co-owners' consent
You can file the ejectment case in your own name, naming yourself as the plaintiff. You do not need to obtain a board resolution, a power of attorney from your co-owners, or even their knowledge before you file. The action proceeds as one brought for the benefit of all co-owners, even if they did not authorize it. A favorable judgment benefits the entire co-ownership — possession is restored to all co-owners collectively. This is why one co-owner's standing to file is recognized: the suit is not purely personal but acts to vindicate a common right.
Ejectment covers forcible entry and unlawful detainer
Ejectment in Philippine procedure refers to two distinct but related remedies filed before the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court: forcible entry (where the occupant entered without permission and by force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth) and unlawful detainer (where the occupant was initially allowed in but has refused to leave after the right to remain has expired or been withdrawn). A single co-owner may bring either type of case alone under Article 487. The one-year prescriptive period runs from the date of unlawful entry or from the last demand to vacate, and you should be aware of it before filing.
Limits of this rule
Article 487 applies to actions against third parties — someone outside the co-ownership who is holding the property without right. It does not work the same way when the person you want to eject is a fellow co-owner. A co-owner cannot be ejected from property they themselves partly own, because they have a co-equal right to possess the whole. In that situation, the proper remedy is generally an action for partition, not ejectment. Similarly, if the occupant entered under a lease or other contract with the co-ownership as a whole, the picture may be more complicated.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Arnelito Adlawan vs. Emeterio M. Adlawan, et al, G.R. No. 161916, January 20, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Perlita Mabalo vs. Heirs of Roman Babuyo, represented by Virgilio L. Babuyo, G.R. No. 238468, July 6, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Roger V. Navarro vs. Hon. Jose L. Escobido, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 37, Cagayan de Oro City, and Karen T. Go, doing business under the name Kargo Enterprises, G.R. No. 153788, November 27, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Nieves Plasabas, et al. vs. Dominador Lumen, et al, G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →