UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW CIVPRO

Joschelly Hannah Costante (D2025) Divinagracia vs. Parilla

Case Name Divinagracia vs. Parilla

Topic Indispensable Parties (Rule 3 Sec 7)

Case No. | Date G.R. No. 196750, March 11, 2015

Ponente Perlas-Bernabe, J.
This case involves the partition of land owned by Conrado Nobleza Sr. In his lifetime, he had nine
legitimate children and three illegitimate children. In this case, allegedly nine out of twelve children
sold their shares to Santiago Divinagracia. However, the other three refused to surrender the title to
the land to Santiago. Thus, Santiago filed a complaint for judicial partition and receivership. In his
complaint, he impleaded the living children of Conrado Nobleza Sr. Regarding Mateo Sr. and Cebeleo
Sr., who predeceased Conrado Sr., Santiago impleaded one of Mateo Sr.’s children and the wife of
Cebeleo Sr.

The RTC ordered the partition of the land and the issuance of the new titles. However, this was
reversed by the CA, which held that the complaint failed to implead all the indispensable parties and
Case Summary
thus, the complaint must be dismissed.

The issues in this case are: first, whether all of Mateo Sr.’s children and all of Cebeleo Sr.’s children
must be impleaded, and second, whether the CA erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of
failure to implead the indispensable parties.

On the first issue, the SC held that in accordance with the Civil Code, the children, and not the wife,
of the deceased heir must be impleaded to represent the deceased heir. On the second issue, the SC
held that failure to implead the indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal and that the proper
remedy would be to direct the inclusion of the indispensable parties.
“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 party's interest in the subject
matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties' that
his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot
Doctrine
be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court, which is effective, complete, or
equitable. Thus, the absence of an indispensable party 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.”

RELEVANT FACTS
Petitioners – Heirs of Santiago
Respondents – Coronacion, Celestial, Cecilia, Celedonio and Maude
1. Conrado Nobleza owned a 313 sqm. parcel of land located in Iloilo City.
2. During his lifetime, he contracted two marriages from which he had 9 legitimate children. He and also had three
illegitimate children:
Legend:
Parties who sold their interest and were impleaded in the complaint
Parties who did not sell their interest but were impleaded in the complaint
Parties who predeceased Conrado, Sr.
Conrado and Lolita Palermo (first wife) Conrado and Eusela Niangar (second Illegitimate children
wife)
1. Cresencio 1. Mateo, Sr. 1. Eduardo
2. Conrado, Jr. a. Felcon 2. Rogelio
b. Landelin 3. Ricardo
c. Eusela
d. Giovanni
e. Mateo Jr.

1
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW CIVPRO
Joschelly Hannah Costante (D2025) Divinagracia vs. Parilla
f. Tito
g. Gaylord
2. Coronacion
3. Cecilia
4. Celestial
5. Celedonio
6. Ceruleo
7. Cebeleo, Sr.
a. Maude (wife)
b. Cebeleo, Jr.
c. Neobel

• NOTE: Mateo, Sr. and Cebeleo,

Sr. predeceased Conrado Sr.
and were survived by their
children.

3. According to Santiago Divinagracia, upon Conrado Sr.’s death, Cresencio, Conrado Jr., Felcon (in representation of his
father and siblings, Coronacion, Celestial, Cecilia, Rogelio, Eduardo and Ricardo sold their interests over the land to
Santiago for P447,695.66. This is evident in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement or Adjudication with Deed of Sale.
4. The same parties also executed a Supplemental contract. They agreed that Santiago will only pay P109,807.93 up front
and that the remaining balance will be paid upon partition of the land.
5. However, Santiago was unable to have the title canceled because Cerulio, Celedonio and Maude refused to surrender
the title to Santiago.
6. Santiago filed a complaint for judicial partition and for receivership. In his complaint, he impleaded the following:
Cresencio, Conrado Jr., Felcon, Coronacion, Celestial, Celudonio, Ceruleo, Maude (Cebeleo Sr.’s wife), Cecilia, Rogelio,
Eduardo and Ricardo.
7. Ceruleo, Celedonio and Maude argued that Santiago had no legal right to file an action for judicial partition not to compel
them to surrender the title because he had not paid the full price of the portion of land bought and because the subject
land is a conjugal asset of Conrado Sr. and Eusela Niangar and only their legitimate issues may inherit the land.

Ruling of the RTC

8. The RTC ordered the partition of the land between Santiago on one hand and Ceruleo, Celedonio, Maude and heirs of
Mateo Sr. on the other hand. The RTC also directed the issuance of new titles.
9. The RTC held that Santiago did not acquire Mateo, Sr.’s share because Felcon admitted that he lacked authority to bind
his siblings with regard to Mateo Sr.’s share.
10. Respondents appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA
11. The CA set aside the ruling of the RTC and dismissed the complaint for judicial partitions.
12. The CA held that the Felcon’s siblings and Maude’s children are indispensable parties to the judicial partition and that
their non-inclusion in Santiago’s complaint would result to the dismissal of such complaint.

ISSUES RATIO

Whether Felcon’s siblings Yes, Felcon’s siblings and Cebeleo, Sr. and Maude’s children are indispensable parties
and Cebeleo, Sr. and
Maude’s children are Discussion of an indispensable party
indispensable parties to

2
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW CIVPRO
Joschelly Hannah Costante (D2025) Divinagracia vs. Parilla
Santiago’s complaint for “An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the
judicial partition – YES litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest
in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with
the other parties' that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.
In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court,
which is effective, complete, or equitable. Thus, the absence of an indispensable party 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.”

According to Sec. 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, a complaint for partition of real estate
requires that all other persons interested in the property must be included as defendants.
Thus, all the co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties
and the action for partition will not lie without those parties.

Whether the CA was correct
in dismissing the complaint
for failure to implead the
omitted heirs – NO
In this case, as regards Mateo Sr.’s interest, only Felcon was impleaded. Meanwhile, regarding
the share of Cebeleo Sr., only his wife, Maude, was impleaded. This contravenes Art. 972 of
the Civil Code which provides that the proper representatives to the interest should have been
his children. The omission of these parties to the complaint made the partition defective.
In Heirs of Mesina v. Heirs of Fian, Sr., the Court held that the non-joinder of indispensable
parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy for this is to implead the
parties omitted. Thus, the proper recourse in this case is to remand to the RTC for the inclusion
of the indispensable parties.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated March 26, 2009 and the Resolution dated April 6,
2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 80167, setting aside the Decision dated November 29, 2002 and the Order dated
April 4, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 31 in Civil Case No. 19003, are hereby 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.

SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo de-Castro, Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.