21. Republic vs. Bernabe, G.R. No. 237663, 6 Oct.

2020

FACTS:

On August 23, 2004, a complaint for cancellation of title and reversion was filed by the Republic
thru the Office of the Solicitor General against respondent Bernabe.

On January 23, 2006, while this case was pending, [respondents] Heirs of Bernabe mortgaged
the subject property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 107736 to [CRBB]. After being
informed of the mortgage, the Republic, through the OSG, filed on December 5, 2011, an
Amended Complaint impleading CRBB as defendant.

Instead of submitting a responsive pleading, CRBB filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the
Republic never renounced its ownership over the Clark Air Force Base, hence, the proper party
to initiate a case for reversion is the Director of Lands.

On May 13, 2014, the [RTC] rendered [a] Resolution, granting CRBB's Motion to Dismiss.

In its Decision dated February 21, 2018, the CA denied the Republic's appeal. The CA agreed
with the RTC that the Republic is not the real party in interest because, from the allegations of
the Republic's Second Amended Complaint, the subject property being located inside the Fort
Stotsenburg Military Reservation, which is presently known as Clark Air Base, is under the
direct control and ownership of the BCDA.

ISSUE:

Is the Republic the real party in interest?

HELD:

Yes, the Republic is the real party in interest.

As defined in Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, a real party in interest is the party
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit. Section 2 adds that unless otherwise authorized biY law or the Rules of Court,
every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

The pronouncement of the Court in Shipside Incorporated that with respect to the
transfer of Camp Wallace to the BCDA, "the government no longer has a right or interest
to protect, the BCDA being the owner of the areas covered by Camp wallace" no longer
holds true in light of the Court's ruling in Manila International Airport Authority on the beneficial
ownership of the Republic and the government instrumentality to which certain government
assets have been transferred being regarded as mere trustee thereof when the right of
disposition by the government instrumentality of such assets has been withheld, and the
subsequent cases that reiterated the said ruling.
 Being the beneficial owner of the CAB Lands, the Republic is the real party in interest
in this case.

22. Divinagracia vs. Parilla, G.R. No. 196750, 11 Mar. 2015

FACTS:

Conrado Nobleza, Sr. (Conrado, Sr.) owned a 313-square meter parcel of land located at Cor.
Fuentes-Delgado Streets, Iloilo City denominated as Lot 133-B-1-A and covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-12255 (subject land). 6 During his lifetime, he contracted two
marriages: (a) the first was with Lolita Palermo with whom he had two (2) children, namely,
Cresencio and Conrado, Jr.; and (b) the second was with Eusela Niangar with whom he had
seven (7) children, namely, Mateo, Sr., Coronacion, Cecilia, Celestial, Celedonio, Ceruleo, 7 and
Cebeleo, Sr. Conrado, Sr. also begot three (3) illegitimate children, namely, Eduardo, Rogelio,
and Ricardo.8 Mateo, Sr. pre-deceased Conrado, Sr. and was survived by his children Felcon,
Landelin, Eusela, Giovanni, Mateo, Jr., Tito, and Gaylord. Cebeleo, Sr. also pre-deceased his
father and was survived by his wife, Maude, and children Cebeleo, Jr. and Neobel.

RTC RULING: ordered the partition

In a Decision dated November 29, 2002, the RTC ordered, among others, the partition of the
subject land between Santiago on the one hand, and Ceruleo, Celedonio, Maude, and the heirs
of Mateo, Sr. (i.e., Felcon, et al.) on the other hand and, consequently, the cancellation of TCT
No. T-12255 and the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate in favor of Santiago and the
group of Ceruleo, Celedonio, Maude, and the heirs of Mateo, Sr.

CA RULING: dismissed complaint for judicial partition

Felcon’s siblings, as well as Maude’s children, are indispensable parties to the judicial partition
of the subject land and, thus, their non-inclusion as defendants in Santiago’s complaint would
necessarily result in its dismissal.

ISSUE:

May the partition proceed despite the non-joinder of indispensable parties?

HELD:

No, the partition cannot proceed.

With regard to actions for partition, Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court requires that all
persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants, viz.:
 SEC. 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. – A person having the right
to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting
forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description
of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other
persons interested in the property.

In this case, while it is conceded that Santiago bought the interests of majority of the heirs of
Conrado, Sr. as evidenced by the subject document, as a vendee, he merely steps into the
shoes of the vendors-heirs. Since his interest over the subject land is merely derived from that
of the vendors-heirs, the latter should first be determined as co-owners thereof, thus
necessitating the joinder of all those who have vested interests in such land, i.e., the aforesaid
heirs of Conrado, Sr., in Santiago’s complaint.

In fine, the absence of the aforementioned indispensable parties in the instant complaint for
judicial partition renders all subsequent actions of the RTC null and void for want of authority to
act, not only as to the absent parties, but even as to those present.

SC: AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION REMANDING the instant case to the court a quo, which
is hereby DIRECTED to implead all indispensable parties and, thereafter, PROCEED with the
resolution of the case on the merits WITH DISPATCH.