-marahay

Case No. 36 (Rule 3 Secs 2, 7, 8)

Definitions of real party in interest, indispensable party, necessary party

Relucio v. Lopez
GR No. 138497
January 16, 2002
Pardo, J.,

Issue:

Whether or not the case should be dismissed on the ground that Relucio, the mistress of co-
defendant Lopez , is not a real party in interest , nor a necessary, or indispensable party in the
case filed by Lopez’ legal wife to be declared sole administrator of the conjugal assets.

Contentions:

Private respondent prayed that she be declared the sole administrator of the conjugal assets
she shares with Alberto Lopez. She claimed that he abandoned her and their four kids to be
with petitioner Relucio, and in the twenty five years since the abandonment, he excluded
private respondent and their four children from the conjugal properties, and allegedly alienated
such properties for Relucio’s benefit, and transferred some to her name. Private respondent
filed Spec. Proc. M-3630 to be declared sole administrator of the conjugal properties, for
accounting of assets, forfeiture, against both her husband Lopez and the mistress, Relucio.

Petitioner Relucio filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that private respondent, aggrieved wife,
had no cause of action against her. The trial court and the CA both denied her petitions ruling
that she is a necessary or indispensable party because some of the subject properties are
registered in her name and defendant Lopez, or solely in her name. Hence, this petition.

Ruling:

Petitioner is correct. She is not a real party in interest. Neither is she an indispensable, nor a
necessary party in the case. There is no cause of action against her. All of the relief sought by
aggrieved wife is obtainable from her husband, Alberto.
A real party in interest is one who stands "to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the
suit."18 In this case, petitioner would not be affected by any judgment in Special Proceedings
M-3630. Firstly, the administration of marriage property is between the spouses only. Secondly,
the petition for an accounting of the assets “by the husband” does not include Relucio. The
third cause of action involving forfeiture of of Alberto’s share in the co-owned properties with
Relucio does not involve the validity of the co-ownership between Alberto and Relucio. The
issue is whether there is basis in law to forfeit Alberto J. Lopez' share, if any there be, in
property co-owned by him with petitioner. The respondent also sought support. Support
cannot be compelled from a stranger.

If petitioner is not a real party in interest, she cannot be an indispensable party. An

indispensable party is one without whom there can be no final determination of an action.
Petitioner's participation in Special Proceedings M-36-30 is not indispensable.

A necessary party as one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as party if
complete relief is to be accorded those already parties, or for a complete determination or
settlement of the claim subject of the action. In the context of her petition in the lower court,
respondent would be accorded complete relief if Alberto J. Lopez were ordered to account for
his alleged conjugal partnership property with respondent, give support to respondent and her
children, turn over his share in the co-ownership with petitioner and dissolve his conjugal
partnership or absolute community property with respondent.

The court dismisses the special proceedings against petitioner.

Case No. 37 (Rule 3 Section 7)

Definition of indispensable party, compulsory joinder of indispensable parties

De Castro v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 115838
July 18, 2002
Carpio, J.,

Issue:

Whether the complaint filed by a real estate agent merits dismissal for failure to implead other
co-owners of the lot involved as indispensable parties.
Contentions:

Private respondent sued petitioners Constante and Corazon De Castro for his alleged unpaid
balance of his broker’s commission. It was he who first found Times Transit Corporation,as
prospective buyer which desired to buy two (2) lots from the De Castros. He received
P48,893.76 as commission but claims that his his total commission should be P352,500.00
which is five percent (5%) of the agreed price of P7,050,000.00.

The De Castros argue that Artigo's complaint should be dismissed for failure to implead all the
co-owners of the two lots. The De Castros claim that Artigo always knew that the two lots were
co-owned by Constante and Corazon with their other siblings Jose and Carmela. The De Castros
contend that failure to implead such indispensable parties is fatal to the complaint since Artigo,
as agent of all the four co-owners, would be paid with funds co-owned by the four co-owners.

Ruling:

The De Castros' contentions are devoid of legal basis.

An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the
litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The joinder of
indispensable parties is mandatory and courts cannot proceed without their presence.
Whenever it appears to the court in the course of a proceeding that an indispensable party has
not been joined, it is the duty of the court to stop the trial and order the inclusion of such party.
This rule does not apply in the case at hand.

A contract of agency was clearly constituted between Constante and Artigo. Whether
Constante appointed Artigo as agent, in Constante's individual or representative capacity, or
both, the De Castros cannot seek the dismissal of the case for failure to implead the other co-
owners as indispensable parties. The De Castros admit that the other co-owners are solidarily
liable under the contract of agency, as per mandate of Article 1915 of the Civil Code.

Art. 1915. If two or more persons have appointed an agent for a common transaction or
undertaking, they shall be solidarily liable to the agent for all the consequences of the agency.

When the law expressly provides for solidarity of the obligation, as in the liability of co-
principals in a contract of agency, each obligor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation.
Article 1216 of the Civil Code says that the creditor `may proceed against anyone of the solidary
debtors or some or all of them simultaneously.