G.R. No.

153788               November 27, 2009

ROGER V. NAVARRO, Petitioner, 
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, Respondents.

FACTS:
Karen T. Go, owner of Kargo Enterprises, filed two complaints for replevin at the RTC. Karen Go prayed that the
RTC will issue writs of replevin for two motor vehicles in Navarro’s possession. Navarro failed to complete
payment for the two FUSO with mounted crane.

Since the complaint did not include Glenn Go as a co-plaintiff, the RTC ordered Karen Go to file a motion for the
inclusion of Glenn Go as co-plaintiff.

In his defense, Navarro alleges that since Kargo Enterprises did not have the juridical personality to sue, being a
single proprietorship, the actual parties to the agreement are himself and Glenn Go. Hence, Karen Go is not a real
party-in-interest and the complaints failed to state a cause of action. He also posits that the RTC erred when it
ordered the amendment of the complaint to include Glenn Go as a co-plaintiff, instead of dismissing the complaint
outright because a complaint which does not state a cause of action cannot be converted into one with a cause of
action by mere amendment or a supplemental pleading. Also, he argued that the complaints were premature because
no prior demand was made on him to comply with the provisions of the lease agreements before the complaints for
replevin were filed.

ISSUE: REPLEVIN
WON Karen Go is the real party-in-interest.

RULING:
YES. Although it is Glenn Go who signed the lease agreement, he was signing that as the manager of Kargo
Enterprises. Hence, Karen Go is clearly the real party in interest since she is the registered owner of Kargo
Enterprises.

Also, since Glenn Go and Karen Go are married, the business has become a conjugal property and either Karen Go
or Glenn Go may speak and act with authority in managing the business. No need to obtain consent of the other
before performing an act of administration by virtue of Art. 124 of the Family Code (the administration and
enjoyment of the conjugal partnership shall belong to both spouses jointly)

Moreover, under Art. 108 of the Family Code, the conjugal partnership is governed by the rules on the contract of
partnership and as such, Art 1811 of the NCC states that partners have an equal right to seek possession of the
properties under contention. Therefore, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in interest. Any
one of them may bring an action, for the recovery of the co-owned properties.

In addition, even assuming that Glenn Go is an indispensable party to the action, misjoinder or nonjoinder of
indispensable parties in a complaint is not a ground for dismissal of action. The proper remedy when a party is left
out is to implead the indispensable property at any stage of the action.

Lastly, in actions for Replevin, prior demand is not required. All the complainant must do is to file an affidavit and
bond pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. However, Navarro is not in a position to claim prior
demand is necessary as he has already admitted in his Answers that he had received letters from Karen Go
demanding that he either pay his unpaid obligations or return the leased motor vehicles. Hence, his claim is
unmeritorious.