Aron v. Realon, G.R. No.
159156, January 31, 2005 Felipe, Sesinando and Montano, all surnamed
FACTS:
 Roman Realon - owner of two (2) parcels
- died intestate survived by his son
Alfredo and the children of his
deceased son, Buenaventura
(Marciano, Joaquino, Florentino, Felipe,
Marcelo, Sesinando, and Montano)
 executed an Extrajudicial Settlement – Alfredo (1
parcel) and nephews (another parcel, divided w/
Alfredo)
 Contract to Sell in favor of Aron – 1) Marciano (in
behalf of his siblings) 2) Alfredo
 Vendors failed to registered; Aron refused to pay
balance and filed an app for the registration
 RTC ruled in favor of Aron
 Alfredo died while Marciano died intestate
 Aron - an amended complaint for consignation
against the heirs of Alfredo, Marciano, and Marcelo
Realon : granted by court
 Respondents – (representing heirs of Alfredo,
Marciano, Roman) complaint for reconveyance and
ownership against the petitioner
 RTC ruled in favor of Respondents
 Aron appealed; CA dismiss
ISSUE:
WON, respondents failed to implead all other
heirs as party-plaintiffs in their complaint?
RULING:
YES.
 presence of all indispensable parties is a
condition sine qua non for the exercise of
judicial power
 The plaintiff is mandated to implead all
indispensable parties, absence of one renders
all subsequent actions of the court null and
void for want of authority to act, not only as to
the absent parties, but even as to those
present.
 all the surviving signatories to the said
documents, namely, Joaquino, Francisco,
Realon, and the other surviving heirs of Alfredo
Realon and Marciano and Marcelo, were
indispensable parties as plaintiffs
 the only plaintiffs impleaded respondents
herein --- Francisco, Domingo and Felipe, all
surnamed Realon and Emiliano Purificacion.
 The surviving signatories of the assailed deeds
and the other heirs of the deceased vendors
were not impleaded as plaintiffs
 Without the presence of all = the trial court
could not validly render judgment
 Respondents – failed to include them in
complaint and title, even providing SPA,
Domingo failed to sign the certification of non-
forum shopping = fatal to case, be dismiss
LOTTE PHILS V DELA CRUZ, ET AL
FACTS:
 7J Maintenance and Janitorial Services (7J) -
contract with LOTTE to provide manpower for
needed maintenance, utility, janitorial and other
services
 Respondents - dispensed with their services
allegedly due to the expiration/termination of the
service contract by Lotte & 7J; not called back to
work
- Complain in LA : illegal dismissal
- LA : 7J guilty of ID
- Appeal to NLRC, Lotte be declared
as direct employer, 7j merely
contractor : denied, MR : denied
- Appeal in CA
 CA reversed : Lotte as real employer, 7j merely
agent of Lotte
 Lotte MR : denied
ISSUE:
WON, 7J is an indispensable party?
RULING:
YES.
 7J - a party in interest because it will be affected
by the outcome of the case
  LA & NLRC found 7J as solely liable as employer
 CA - Lotte jointly and severally liable with 7J
who was not impleaded; its decision – directly
affected 7j
 Although 7J was a co-party in LA & NLRC,
respondents failed to include in CA.
 the Court of Appeals did not acquire jurisdiction
over 7J.
 No final ruling on this matter can be had
without impleading 7J
Dael v. Teves & Edorot Et al, 136 SCRA 199 (1985)
FACTS:
 petitioners - complaint for: "Ownership, Recovery of
Possession & Damages" against the private
respondents
- owner of subj property; purchased
fr late Esteban Edorot
- after death of Esteban; respondents
occupied land
 Respondents - owned by them pro-indiviso by
inheritance from their deceased parents
 Vidal Edorot – appeared in pre-trial: w/ SPA to
appear for defendants Dionisio, Diosdada, Ponciano
and Juana.
 other defendants, Petra and Herminigildo, died long
before the filing of the complaint
 Jugde Teves – order Daet– file amen comp to
include heirs of decease
 Daet failed; Edorot MtoD : granted; Daet MR :
dismiss
ISSUE:
WON, case is correctly dismissed?
RULING:
YES.
 Subj property – pro-indiviso by inheritance of
Edorots; deceased Herminigildo & Petra have
unidivided interest; hence heirs should also be
impleaded for being indispensable parties;
 Judge correct in ordering amendment; failure to
comply = dismissal
 Daet claim = failure due to counsel’s failure to
inform the Court of the names of the heirs (Section
16. Duty of attorney upon death incapacity or
incompetency of party)
 Misplaced reliance; rule applies = died after filing or
during pendency of case
 Deceased respondents = died before the filing of
Daet complaint
Seno v. Mangubat & SPS Luzame, 156 SCRA 113 (1987)
FACTS:
 Seno - a complaint 1) the reformation of a
Deed of Sale executed in favor of defendant
Marcos Mangubat and, 2) the annulment of a
subsequent sale to defendant spouses
 Crisanta Seno – deed of absolute sale with
Marcos Mangubat, Andres Evangelista, and
Bienvido Mangubat
 Andres & bienvinido – deed of absolute sale,
transfer shares to Mangubat
 Mangubat – sold to Sps Luzame
 Sps Luzame – ejectment case against Seno for
alleged non-payment of rentals.
 Sps motion : inclusion of AE & BM as
indispensable parties
 AE & BM impleaded as defendants by Seno;
MtoD : prescription – granted
 MR : denied, CA certified case to SC
ISSUE:
WON, Andres & Bienvinido are indispensable
parties?
RULING:
NO. Necessary parties only.
 No rights of Andres Evangelista and Bienvenido
Mangubat to be safeguarded in whether
sale/mortage
 Mangubat became the absolute owner of the
subject property by virtue of the sale to him of the
shares by AE & BM.
 However, being parties to the instrument sought to
be reformed, their presence is necessary in order
to settle all the possible issues of tile controversy.
 plaintiffs - not after defendants Andres & Bienvinido
 INDISPENSABLE PARTIES – must be joined; with
such an interest in the controversy that a final
decree would necessarily affect their rights
 NECESSARY PARTIES - must be joined, in order to
adjudicate the whole controversy and avoid
multiplicity of suits; interests are so far separable
that a final decree can be made in their absence
without affecting them
 Andres Evangelista and Bienvenido - dummies of
Marcos Mangubat and that the sale - an equitable
mortgage.
Quiombing v. Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 325 (1990)
FACTS:
 1ST agreement: Construction & Service Agreement
(Quiombing & Biscocho (jointly &severally) –
Francisco & Manuelita Saligo)
 2nd agreement: (Quiombing & Manuelita) acknow
completion & undertook to pay
 Manuelita : PN ; failed to pay
 Quiombing – complaint for recovery of sum of
money
 Defendants MtoD : Biscocho as indispensable party;
be impleaded as co-plaintiff – granted by court
 Quiombing, not file amen comp, appeal to the
order. Contention : as solidary creditor could act by
himself; amounts payable to him in 2nd A, Biscocho
not mentioned
 CA affirmed RTC, Biscocho be implead as co-
plaintiff, part of 1st party
ISSUE:
WON, Biscocho be impleaded as co-plaintiff?
RULING:
Not necessary.
 Joint obligation – proportionate share
 Solidary – each debtor entitled to pay entire obli,
creditor entitled to demand entire obli
 It did not matter who to file – respondents liable to
either of the two as a solidary creditor for the full
amount of the debt
 Article 1212 of the Civil Code - Each one of the
solidary creditors may do whatever may be useful
to the others, but not anything which may be
prejudice to the latter.
 Suing for the recovery of the contract price is
certainly a useful act that Quiombing could do by
himself alone.
 Obli is solidary – either party is In.P. bec complete
relief may be obtained fr either
 Quiombing as solidary creditor can by himself alone
enforce payment of the construction costs by the
private respondents and as a solidary debtor may
by himself alone be held liable for any possible
breach of contract that may be proved by the
private respondents
Domingo v. Scheer, 421 SCRA 468
FACTS:
 Scheer - a German; was a frequent visitor of the
Philippines; application for permanent resident
status was granted
 In 1995, DFA received letter fr German Embassy –
Scheer: wanted in Germany, has financial liabilities
 BOC – issued Summary Deportation
 aired his side to then BID Commissioner Leandro T.
Verceles - allowed to remain in PH, secured
clearance & new passport fr germany
 Filed - Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the
Summary Deportation Order of the BOC; no action
made by BOC; neither arrested nor deported
 Case in germany dismiss, no longer wanted
 Germany embassy – issued temp passport
 BOC still failed to resolve the respondents Urgent
Motion for Reconsideration
 petitioner Immigration Commissioner assumed
office – inquired case of Scheer, no longer wanted
 However, Marine operatives and BID agents
apprehended the respondent in his residence on
orders of the Domingo
 Urgent MR in BOC : denied
 Appeal in Ca : During hearing, BOC informed OSG
thru its Omnibus Reso : BOC is an indispensable
party, petitioner failure to implead BOC
 CA ruled in favor of Scheer ; ruling on BOC In.P :
cited 2 cases where Immig. Comm. Was impleaded
 to decide over alien deportation case, BOC stopped
for not raising issue earlier
ISSUE :
WON, BOC is indispensable party over the case?
RULING:
YES.
 respondent - arrested and detained on the basis of
the Summary Deportation Order of the BOC
- prayed to annul deport. Order and
omnibus reso of BOC
- prayed for immediate reso of
Urgent MR w/c shoud be resolve by
BOC
 hence, BOC is the IN.P, not merely Domingo as
Immig. Comm., w/c the latter acted as official in the
commission
 powers and duties of the BOC may not be exercised
by the individual members of the Commission
 the CA did not require the Scheer to implead the
BOC as respondent, but merely relied on the rulings
of the Court in Vivo v. Arca,[52] and Vivo v. Cloribel
w/c acts subject of the petition in the two cases
were those of the Immigration Commissioner and
not those of the BOC
 BOC committed grave abuse of discretion in depor
order
Chua v. Torres, G.R. No. 151900, Aug. 30, 2005
FACTS:
 Christina Chua – complaint in RTC, impleading
Jonathan Chua as co-plaintiff
 Torres – owner of Caltex Service Center; Beltran –
employee, head of sales division
 Jonathan issued check to Caltex for payment of fuel;
dishonored
 Beltran demand letter to Christina; Christina
ignored – not the one who issued check
 Beltran filed BP 22 case against Christina
 Christina complaint – damages against Torres and
Beltran for negligence to check who issued check
 Jonathan as necessary party plaintiff - no allegation
in complaint of any damage or injury suffered by
him; not signed verification & certification for non-
forum shopping
 RTC dismiss complaint; Jonathan failed to signed
verification
ISSUE:
WON, Jonathan is a necessary party in the case?
RULING:
NO.
 Jonathan misjoined as party plaintiff
 One having no right or interest to protect cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a party
plaintiff in an action
 The subject complaint does not allege any rights of
Jonathan Chua violated by respondents, present
any rights of his to be enforced, or seek in his behalf
any rights to the avails of suit
 Jonathan claims nothing
 If alone filed, dismiss for no COA
 Christina fails to demonstrate how Jonathan can be
considered as a necessary party, other than by
noting that he was the one who really issued the
check in controversy
 Jonathan Chua does not stand to be affected should
the RTC rule either favorably or unfavorably of the
complaint
 He may be called to be a witness only, not as
necessary party.
 A misjoined party plaintiff has no business = not
require in complying with all the requirements
expected of plaintiffs
Republic v. Campos G.R. No. 84895 May 4, 1989
FACTS:
 RP – filed charges against Sandiganbayan (grave
abuse of discretion) not dropping Jose Campos Jr as
defendant in the civil case.
 RP – filed complaint for reconveyance, reversion,
accounting, restitution and damages against Alfredo
(Bejo) T. Romualdez, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R.
Marcos, Jose D. Campos, Jr. and forty five (45) other
defendants to seek for ill gotten wealth
 Jose filed motion, he be removed as defendants;
given immunity by PCGG pursuant to EO 14 to
Campos family
 Denied by Sandiganbayan: PCGG cannot grant civil
immunity; if did, corp or prop of Campos still cover
by the case
ISSUE:
WON, Campos Jr be dropped as defendant in
the case?
RULING:
YES.
 EO 14 - PCGG is authorized to file both criminal and
civil cases against persons suspected of having
acquired ill-gotten wealth under sec 3
 PCGG issued a resolution dated May 28, 1986,
granting immunity from both civil and criminal
prosecutions to Jose Y. Campos and his family
- embodies a compromise agreement
between the PCGG on one hand
and Jose Y. Campos on the other
 SECTION 7.
o The provision of this Executive Order shall
prevail over any and all laws, or parts
thereof, as regards the investigation,
prosecution, and trial of cases for violations
of laws involving the acquisition and
accumulation of ill-gotten wealth as
mentioned in Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2.
 The Sandiganbayan's objections will hamper PCGG
efforts in this similar cases.
 PCGG was right when it filed a motion to drop Jose
Campos, Jr. as defendant in the civil case. Section
11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court (misjoinder not
ground for dismissal; parties may be dropped on
motion)
 the PCGG's motion to drop Campos, Jr. as
defendant in Civil Case No. 0010 has legal basis
under Executive Order No. 14.
Plasabas & Malazarte v. CA, G.R. No. 166519, March
31, 2009
FACTS:
 Nieves Plasabas & Marcos Malazarte - complaint for
recovery of title to property with damages; subj
property : coconut land; prayed that judgment be
rendered confirming their rights and legal title
 Respondents (Lumen & aunzo) opposed; land
inherited fr Franciso Plasabas
 During trial, Nieves – not sole owner; only co-onwer
with her siblings –Jose, Victor & Victoria
 Respondents – case should be terminated; failure to
implead siblings as co-plaintiffs
 TC dismiss case w/o prejudiced
 Appeal to CA; affirm TC
ISSUE:
WON, siblings of Nieves should be impleaded?
RULING:
NO.
 Article 487 of the Civil Code - any one of the co-
owners may bring an action for ejectment. A co-
owner may file suit without necessarily joining all
the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the
suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of
all.
 XPN: if action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone
 Allegation in the complaint of petitioners is
immaterial, acknowledged during the trial that the
property is co-owned by Nieves and her siblings,
and that petitioners have been authorized by the
co-owners to pursue the case
 Impleading others – not mandatory; case is for the
benefit of all
Office of the City Mayor of Parañaque City, et al. v.
Mario D. Ebio and His Children/Heirs namely, Arturo V.
Ebio, Eduardo, et al., G.R. No. 178411, June 23, 2010
FACTS:
 Respondents claim that they are the absolute
owners of a parcel of land, in the name of Marion
Ebio
 Subj property : accretion of Cut-creek
 Sangg Brgy of Vitalez reso – seeking asstance of city
govt of Paranaque for the construction of an access
 road along Cut-cut Creek, transversing the land of
respondents
 Respondents opposed, meetings conducted; to no
avail
 Resp applied for WPI in RTC against petitioners;
denied: not able to establish sufficient proof of
ownership; MR : denied
 Elevate to CA; reversed RTC, Pets. MR denied
 Pets. argued, creek as public domain, should have
impleaded State as In.P
ISSUE:
WON, state is an In.P. over the case?
RULING:
NO.
 An action for injunction is brought specifically to
restrain or command the performance of an act.
 respondents - action for injunction = prevent the
paranaque from proceeding with the construction
of an access road
 the subject land was formed from the alluvial
deposits that have gradually settled along the banks
of Cut-cut creek – Art 84 Spanish Law of Waters –
alluvial deposits belong to the owners of land; Art
457 of CC – accretion belong to owner of land
adjoining banks
 alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek do not
form part of the public domain, belong to owner
 since not public domain, The State is neither a
necessary nor an indispensable party to an action
where no positive act shall be required from it or
where no obligation shall be imposed upon it
Carandang v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 160347 November
29, 2006
FACTS:
 Quirino de Guzman & Sps Carandang - stockholders
as well as corporate officers of Mabuhay
Broadcasting System (MBS)
 Capital stock increase twice, subscribed twice by
Sps
 De Guzman – claim, part of payment for
subscriptions paid by him
 Sps refused to pay; invoked pre-incorp agreem
where De Guzman promised to pay stock
subscriptions of Carandang
 DG filed complaint for recovery
 RTC ruled in favor of Dg
 Appealed to CA; denied
 Sps claimed – 3 of 4 checks used to pay their subsc
were issued in the name of Milagros de Guzman;
In.P
 CA : conjugal property; husband alone may
institute an action for the recovery or protection of
the spouses conjugal property under CC & FC
 Appeal to SC
ISSUE:
WON, Milagros be impleaded as indispensable
party?
RULING:
NO.
 Sps DG – married before FC; not executed marri
settlement; regime of conjuga partnership governs
 assuming that the four checks created a debt for
which the spouses Carandang are liable, such
credits are presumed to be conjugal property
 Quirino de Guzman, being a co-owner of specific
partnership property, --- is certainly a real party in
interest
 3rd set of parties: the pro-forma parties, which are
those who are required to be joined as co-parties
in suits by or against another party as may be
provided by the applicable substantive law or
procedural rule
 Pro-forma parties can either be indispensable,
necessary or neither indispensable nor necessary
 In cases of pro-forma parties who are neither
indispensable nor necessary, = such non-joinder is
not a ground for dismissal
 The non-joinder of a spouse does not warrant
dismissal as it is merely a formal requirement which
may be cured by amendment
 Milagros de Guzman, being presumed to be a co-
owner of the credits allegedly extended to the
 spouses Carandang, seems to be either an
indispensable or a necessary party.
 Being co-owners of the alleged credit, Quirino and
Milagros de Guzman may separately bring an
action for the recovery thereof
 Art 487 of CC - 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
 Presumption : filed for the benefit of all co-owners
Divinagracia v. Parilla, G.R. No. 196750, March 11,
2015
FACTS:
 Conrado Sr – owned land
 2 marriage : 1) 2 sons – Cresencio & Conrado Jr; 2) 7
children - Mateo, Sr., Coronacion, Cecilia, Celestial,
Celedonio, Ceruleo,7 and Cebeleo, Sr; 3) 3
illegitimate children - Eduardo, Rogelio, and Ricardo
 Mateo Sr, predeceased Conrado – survived by his
children Felcon, Landelin, Eusela, Giovanni, Mateo,
Jr., Tito, and Gaylord
 Heirs of Conrado of sold land to Santiago except
Ceruleo, Celedonio, and Maude (in representation
of his husband, Cebeleo, Sr., and their children)
 Santiago – not able to registered title, bec of
Ceruleo, Celedonio, and Maude’s refusal to
surrender the said title
 Santiago – complaint for judicial partition
 RTC: ordered the partition
 Appeal to CA : set aside; Felcon’s siblings, as well as
Maude’s children, are indispensable parties
 Heirs of Santiago MR; denied
ISSUE:
WON, all the heirs are impleaded in the
complaint, hence it be defective?
RULING?
YES.
 Sec 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court requires that all
persons interested in the property shall be joined as
defendants
 all the co-heirs and persons having an interest in
the property are indispensable parties, HENCE all
heirs of Conrado Sr (extending to grandsons)
 Santiago’s complaint - Mateo, Sr.’s interest, only
Felcon was impleaded, others not
- with regard to Cebeleo, Sr. – wife, but it
should be the children
 Santiago’s omission of the aforesaid heirs renders
his complaint for partition defective.
 Santiago should first determine the co-owners to
necessitate the joinder of all parties
NPC v. Vichuaco, G.R. No. 180654, April 21, 2014
FACTS:
 NPC (National Power Corporation) – tax
delinquency; Province of Bataan 45.9 M
 Prov sent notices of tax due
 NPC – ceased to be liable; Congress enacted Electric
Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA); relieved the
NPC of the function of generating and supplying
electricity beginning that year
 Ignored by Province; issued warrant of levy; set
public auction, highest bidder: province
 NPC – complaint in RTC; nullity of foreclosure
 No legal basis; under EPIRA power generation is not
a public utility operation requiring a franchise,
hence, not taxable
 NPC ceased to operate, transfer to TRANSCO and
PSALM Corp
 RTC denied NPC petition; Appeal to CA; Province
MtoD : local tax case, CTA juris – granted by CA
ISSUE:
WON, TRANSCO & PSALM Corp be impleaded as
indispensable parties?
RULING:
YES.
 Sec 8 of EPIRA – created TRANSCO & assumed NPC’s
electrical transmission function
 Hence, NPC ceased to operate the business in
Bataan, tax not liability of NPC
 SEC 49 of EPIRA – created Power Sector Assets and  These issues can be resolved independent of the
Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM Corp) participation of the alleged real owners of the
& all NPC’s generation assets transferred to it. subject properties.
 Hence, NPC ceased running its power transmission
and distribution business, not liable to local tax
franchise
 since the subject properties belong to PSALM Corp.
and TRANSCO, they are certainly indispensable
parties to the case that must be necessarily
included before it may properly go forward.

Laus vs. Optimum Security Sevices, Inc., G.R. 208343,

February 3, 2016

FACTS:

 Sps Laus – complaint – damages w/ app for WPI &

TRO against respondent and several security
guards, Miravalles & TIPCO; prevented them to
enter their property
 Resp opposed – not owners of the subject
properties, real owners authorized them to secure
the area
 TIPCo denied preventing pets, and not hiring guards
 RTC: granted app; Resp MR : denied
 CA reversed : resp not RPII , merely contracted to
secure the properties, real owners as RPII

ISSUE:

WON, real owners are IN.P in this case?

RULING:

NO.

 alleged real owners of the subject properties may

be considered as real parties in interest, they are
not indispensable parties to the instant suit
 action – injunction : as it ultimately seeks to
permanently enjoin respondent and the other
defendants, from restricting petitioners' access to
the subject properties
 The crux of the main case - is whether or not
respondent and said defendants were justified in
preventing petitioners from conducting the
relocation survey on the subject properties
 Damages – ancillary for the acts complained