civpro, cases on rules 1-3 (compiled) (1)

8/19/2019 CIVPRO, Cases on Rules 1-3 (Compiled) (1)

1/17

ALONSO V VILLAMOR

G.R. No. L-2352 July 26, 1910

Facts: This is an action brought to recover of the defendants the value of certain articles taken from aRoman Catholic Church located in the municipality of Placer, and the rental value of the church and itsappurtenances, including the church cemetery, from the 11th day of December, 1 !1, until the month of

"pril, 1 !#$ "fter hearing the evidence, the court belo% gave &udgment in favor of the plaintiff$

't appears that the defendants took possession of the church and its appurtenances, and also of all of thepersonal property contained therein$ The plaintiff, as priest of the church and the person in chargethereof, protested against the occupation thereof by the defendants, but his protests received noconsideration, and he %as summarily removed from possession of the church, its appurtenances andcontents$

The only defense presented by the defendants, e(cept the one that the plaintiff %as not the real party ininterest, %as that the church and other buildings had been erected by funds voluntarily contributed by thepeople of that municipality, and that the articles %ithin the church had been purchased %ith funds raised inlike manner, and that, therefore, the municipality %as the o%ner thereof$

'ssues: 1$ )*+ the plaintiff, R$P$ "lonso, is the real party in interest +o-.$)*+ the Court can substitute as party plaintiff the real party in interest /es-

0eld: 1$ +*$ 't held that is undoubted the bishop of the diocese or the Roman Catholic "postic Churchitself is the real party in interest$ The plaintiff personally has no interest in the cause of action$ ection 11#of the Code of Civil Procedure re2uires that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real partyin interest$ The plaintiff is not such party$

.$ /3 $ C ordered that the action be amended by substituting the Roman Catholic "postolic Churchinthe place and stead of Father "lonso as party plaintiff for the reason that the amendment does notconstitute change in the identity of the parties but &ust a formal substitution

ection 11! of the Code of Civil Procedure, ho%ever, provides:

3C$ 11!$ "mendments in general$ 4 The court shall, in furtherance of &ustice, and on such terms, if any, as may be proper, allo% a party to amend any pleading or proceeding and at any stage of the action,in either the Court of First 'nstance or the upreme Court, by adding or striking out the name of any party,either plaintiff or defendant, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistaken or inade2uateallegation or description in any other respect so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily bedetermined, %ithout regard to technicalities, and in the most e(peditious, and ine(pensive manner$ Thecourt may also, upon like terms, allo% an ans%er or other pleading to be made after the time limited bythe rules of the court for filing the same$ *rders of the court upon the matters provided in this section shallbe made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard$

ection 5!6 of the same code provides: 3C$ 5!6$ 7udgment not to be reversed on technical grounds$ 4 +o &udgment shall be reversed onformal or technical grounds, or for such error as has not pre&udiced the real rights of the e(cepting party$

G.R. No. L-21706 March 26, 192JOS!"INA R#$IO V%A. %! LAR!NA vs$&!RM!N!GIL%O VILLAN#!VAOS'RAN%, J.:


2/17

F"CT : The case at bar is a se2uel to case 8$ R$ +o$ .19! , 7osefina Rubio de ;arena vs$0ermenegildo lessee of the unpaid balance of the rent for the agricultural year 1 .!>1 .. in the sum of P5, # $.? %ith interest from "ugust . , 1 .., an for P?,!!! in rent for the agricultural year 1 .1>1 .6$The decision also provided that the possession of the leased land be delivered to the plaintiff$ hortlyafter the record %as returned to the court belo%, a %rit of e(ecution %as issued, but before levy %as madethe parties came to an agreement, under %hich the money &udgment %as to be satisfied by the paymentof P1!,5!! in cash and the transfer to the plaintiff of a d%elling house situated in the municipality of @ais$The agreement %as carried out in accordance %ith its terms, and on eptember 6!, 1 .#, the document%as e(ecuted by the plaintiff$ The present action %as brought on "pril 16, 1 .5, but the last amendedcomplaint, setting forth three causes of action, %as not filed until 7une 19, 1 .9$ The defendants allegesthat according to the pleadings in case 8$ R$ +o$ .19! , the t%o causes of action %ere included in thatcase and, therefore, must be considered res &udicata$ 'n all three causes of action, the defendant sets upas a special defense the document e(ecuted by the plaintiff on eptember 6!, 1 .#, ackno%ledging thesatisfaction of the &udgment in case 8$ R$ +o$ .19!

' A3 $ )B+ The doctrine of res &udicata is applicable

RA;'+8: +o$

Properly speaking, this argument does not involve the doctrine of res &udicata but rests on the %ell>kno%nan, in "merican la%, firmly established principle that a party %ill not be permitted to split up a single causeof action an make it the basis for several suits$ @ut that is not this case$ The rule is %ell established that%hen a lease provides for the payment of the rent in separate installments, each installment is anindependent cause of action, though it has been held and is good la%, that in an action upon such a leasefor the recovery of rent, the installments due at the time the action brought must be included in thecomplaint an that failure to o so %ill constitute a bar to a subse2uent action for the payment of that rent$The aforesaid action, 8$ R$ +o$ .19! , %as brought on "ugust .6, 1 .., the plaintiff demanding paymentof then sue rent in addition to the rescission of the lease$ The plaintiff also amended the prayer of thecomplaint by asking &udgment for rent for years subse2uent to 1 ..$ The motion %as granted, and thecase came up for trial on 7uly 6!, 1 .6, and on eptember ?, 1 .6, the trial court rendered its decisiongiving &udgment for rent up to and including the rent for the agricultural year ending in 1 .6$ The lease didnot provide for payment of rent in advance or at any definite time, an it appears plainly from the recordthat the rent for an agricultural year %as not considered due until the end of the corresponding year$ 'tfollo%s that the rent for the agricultural year 1 ..>1 .# ha not become sue time of the trial of the caseand that conse2uently the trial court could not render &udgment therefore$ The action referred to is,therefore, no bar to the first cause of action in the present litigation$

$LOSSOM AN% (OM)AN*, IN(. +la //, . MANILA GAS (OR)ORA'ION / a .

G.R. No. L-32954 No r 4, 1930

Joh , J.

FACTS: *n ept$ 1!, 1 1?, the parties entered into a contract %herein the =anila 8as undertook todeliver to @lossom coal and %ater gas tar monthly for a period of #yrs$ *n 7anuary 61, 1 1 , the contract%as amended so that it should continue to remain in force for a period of 1!yrs$ Plaintiff alleged that onthe last part of 7uly 1 .!, defendant breached the contract by ceasing to deliver any coal and %ater gastar despite demands from the former$ Thus, on +ovember .6, 1 .6, plaintiff instituted an action againstdefendant to recover the damages amounting to P1.#,?#?$9! %hich it had then sustained by reason of such flagrant violation of said contract on the part of the defendant and to obtain the specific performance


3/17

of the said contract$ CF' rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay theformer the sum of P. ,11 $!? as the damages suffered by plaintiff from 7uly 1 .! up to and including

eptember, 1 .6$ 0o%ever, the court refused to order the said defendant to resume the delivery of thecoal and %ater gas tar to the plaintiff under said contract, but left the plaintiff %ith its remedy for damagesagainst defendant for the subse2uent breaches of said contract$ uch decision %as affirmed by the C on=arch 6, 1 . $

=anila 8as made no deliveries under its contract from 7uly, 1 .! to =arch . , 1 . , or until after theupreme Court affirmed the &udgment of the lo%er court for damages$ *n =arch 6, 1 .9 plaintiff instituted

the present action for damages %hich it claims to have sustained after eptember 1 .6, arising from itsoriginal contract$ Defendant contends that there is no cause of action there being prior ad&udication of allthe issues involved in this case and that plaintiff already filed an action in the CF' in %hich it obtained afavorable &udgment and %hich %as further affirmed by the C$

ISSUE: )*+ there is plaintiff has cause of action in the instant case$

HELD: NONE, the case is barred by res judicata. 'n the first action plaintiff prayed for &udgment againstthe defendant:

a- That upon trial of this this cause &udgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against thedefendant for the sum of P1.#,?#?#$9!-, %ith legal interest thereon from +ovember .6, 1 .6

b- That the court specifically order the defendant to resume the delivery of the coal and %ater gas tar tothe plaintiff under the terms of the said contract 3(hibit " of this complaint$

Thus, plaintiff must stand or fall on its o%n pleadings, and tested by that rule it must be admitted that theplaintiffEs original cause of action, in %hich it recovered &udgment for damages, %as founded on the ten>year contract, and that the damages %hich it then recovered %ere recovered for a breach of that contract$

@oth actions are founded on one and the same contract$ @y the terms of the original contract of eptember 1!, 1!1? ((( 'n other %ords, under plaintiffEs o%n theory, the defendant %as to make

deliveries from month to month of the tars during the period of ten years, and it is alleged in bothcomplaints that the defendant broke its contract, and in bad faith refused to make any more deliveries$

"s a general rule a contract to do several things at several times in its nature, so as to authori esuccessive actions and a &udgment recovered for a single breach of a continuing contract or covenant isno bar to a suit for a subse2uent breach thereof$ @ut %here the covenant or contract is entire, and thebreach total, there can be only one action, and plaintiff must therein recover all his damages$

'n the case of Rhoelm vs, 0orst, the court held that Gan un2ualified and positive refusal to perform acontract, though the performance thereof is not yet due, may, if the renunciation goes to the %holecontract, be treated as a complete breach %hich %ill entitle the in&ured party to bring his action at once$HFurther, in Pakas vs$ 0ollingshead, the syllabus says: GApon refusal, by the seller, after partialperformance, longer to comply %ith his contract to sell and deliver a 2uantity of articles in installments thebuyer cannot keep the contract in force and maintain actions for breaches as they occur but must recover all his damages in one suit$H

't %ill thus be seen that, %here there is a complete and total breach of a continuous contract for a term of years, the recovery of a &udgment for damages by reason of the breach is a bar to another action on thesame contract for and on account of the continuous breach$


4/17

't is admitted that the defendant never made any deliveries of any tar from 7uly, 1 .!, to "pril, 1 6 $ "lsothat it made nine deliveries to plaintiff of the minimum 2uantities of coal and %ater gas tar from "pril 9,1 . , to 7anuary 5, 1 .9$ Plaintiff contends that such deliveries %ere made under and in continuation of the old contract$ 0o%ever, the record e(change of letters bet%een the parties- tends to sho% that tars%hich the defendant delivered after "pril 9, 1 . , %ere not delivered under the old contract of 7anuary 1,1 .!, and that at all times since 7uly 1 .!, the defendant has consistently refused to make any deliveriesof any tars under that contract$

"fter careful study of the many important 2uestions presented on this appeal in the e(haustive brief of theappellant, %e are clearly of the opinion that, as found by the lo%er court, the plea of res &udicata must besustained$ The &udgment of the lo%er court is affirmed$

R#L! 2S AGMAN &O'!LS AN% 'RAV!L, IN(. . (O#R' O" A))!ALS, a N!AL $. (&RIS'IANG.R. No. 161135. A+r l 4, 2005%AVI%!, JR., C .J.

Facts

%agman 0otels I Travel, 'nc$, through "tty$ ;eonor ;$ 'nfante President- and Rodney David 0egertyPresident-, obtained a loan from +eal @$ Christian through 6 promissory notes each having a value

of J5!,!!! payable in 6 years at 15KByr interest dated as follo%s:

1$ "ugust 9, 1.$ =arch 1#, 1 96$ 7uly 1#, 1 9

+eal terminated the loan and demanded J15!,!!! plus unpaid interest of J16,5!! on December 1 ,

1 ?$ 0e then filed a complaint for sum of money and damages %ith RTC @aguio on February ., 1 $+eal allegedly agreed to %aive the interest rate and accept the payment of the principal loans ininstallment due to the "sian Financial Crisis$ 'n turn, %agman alleged for lack of cause of actionbecause the loans %ere not yet due and demandable %hen the complaint %as filed$

RTC @aguio ruled that the first t%o promissory notes %ere already due and demandable$ 'tordered %agman to pay P1!!,!!! representing its principal obligation %ith an interest of KBmo$ untilfully paid$ 't ruled that even if there %as no cause of action %hen the complaint %as filed, it may be curedby evidence presented %ithout ob&ection$ 't also ruled that there %as no novation of obligation upon theacceptance of partial payment and reduction of the amount of the obligation$ The true test of novation is%hen t%o obligations cannot stand together %here each one having an independent e(istence$

The C" denied %agmanLs appeal and affirmed the RTCLs Decision$ " complaint %ithout a causeof action can be cured by evidence presented %ithout ob&ection or, in the event of an ob&ection sustainedby the court, by an amendment of the complaint %ith leave of court$ "lso it ruled that there %as nonovation because it re2uires e(press agreement of the parties or acts that are too clear and une2uivocalto be mistaken$

'ssue


5/17

=ay a complaint that lacks a cause of action at the time it %as filed be cured by the accrual of cause of action during the pendency of the caseM

0eld

+*$ @oth the RTC and C" interpreted ec$ 5, Rule 1!, 1 9 Rules of Procedure incorrectly$ "mendmentto conform to or authori e presentation of evidence is only applicable only if a cause of action in facte(ists at the time the complaint is filed, but a complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts$

" cause of action is the act or omission by %hich a party violates the right of another$ 'ts essentialelements are:

1- " right in favor of the plaintiff by %hatever means and under %hatever la% it arises or is created.- "n obligation on the part of the named defendants to respect or not to violate such right and6- "ct or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting

a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for %hich the latter may maintain anaction for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief$ Rule ., 1 9 Rules of Procedure-

'n the case, there %as no cause of action %here on February ., 1 , the time %hen the action %asfiled, no promissory note %as yet due and demandable$ The rule %as made to resolve cases in the moste(peditious and ine(pensive manner %ithout regard to technicalities and avoid multiplicity of suits$ "naction prematurely brought is a groundless suit$ Further, novation in this case ho%ever is of themodificatory type and not the e(tinctive one since the obligation to pay a sum of money remains in force$

G.R. No. 142 35, Au8u 13, 2012LILIA $. A%A, L# $. A%AN A, "LORA (. $A *LON, R!MO $A *LON, JOS! $A *LON, !RI( $A

*LON, "LOR!N'INO $A *LON, a MA. R#$* $A *LON . "LORAN'! $A *LON

Facts:Florentino @aylon and =a(imina 3lnas @aylon pouses @aylon- %ho died on +ovember 9, 1 1 and

=ay 5, 1 9#, respectively$ They %ere survived by their legitimate children, namely, Rita @aylon,


6/17

During the pendency of the case, Rita, through a Deed of Donation dated 7uly , 1 9, conveyed ;ot +o$#9! and half of ;ot +o$ #9! to Florante$ *n 7uly 1 , .!!!, Rita died intestate and %ithout any issue$

"fter learning of the said donation inter vivos in favor of Florante, the petitioners filed a upplementalPleading dated February , .!!., praying that the said donation in favor of the respondent be rescindedin accordance %ith "rticle 16?1 #- of the Civil Code$

The RTC rendered a Decision finding the e(istence of co>o%nership but ordered the partition of theproperty os pouses @aylon, and it rescinded the donation made$

*n appeal, the C" reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC insofar as they decreed the rescissionof the Deed of Donation$ The case %as remanded to the trial court for the determination of o%nership of lot no$ #9! and half of lot no$ #9! $

The C" held that before the petitioners may file an action for rescission, they must first obtain a favorable &udicial ruling that ;ot +o$ #9! and half of ;ot +o$ #9! actually belonged to the estate of pouses@aylon and not to Rita$ Antil then, the C" asserted, an action for rescission is premature$ Further, the C"ruled that the petitionersL action for rescission cannot be &oined %ith their action for partition, accountingand damages through a mere supplemental pleading$

'ssue:)hether the C" erred in ruling that the donation inter vivos of ;ot +o$ #9! and half of ;ot +o$ #9! infavor of Florante may only be rescinded if there is already a &udicial determination that the same actuallybelonged to the estate of pouses @aylon$

Ruling:The complaint filed by the petitioners %ith the RTC involves t%o separate, distinct and independentactions N partition and rescission$The actions of partition and rescission cannot be &oined in a single action$

@y a &oinder of actions, or more properly, a &oinder of causes of action is meant the uniting of t%o or moredemands or rights of action in one action, the statement of more than one cause of action in a declaration$'t is the union of t%o or more civil causes of action, each of %hich could be made the basis of a separatesuit, in the same complaint, declaration or petition$ " plaintiff may under certain circumstances &oin severaldistinct demands, controversies or rights of action in one declaration, complaint or petition$

The ob&ectives of the rule or provision are to avoid a multiplicity of suits %here the same parties andsub&ect matter are to be dealt %ith by effecting in one action a complete determination of all matters incontroversy and litigation bet%een the parties involving one sub&ect matter, and to e(pedite the dispositionof litigation at minimum cost$ The provision should be construed so as to avoid such multiplicity, %herepossible, %ithout pre&udice to the rights of the litigants$

+evertheless, %hile parties to an action may assert in one pleading, in the alternative or other%ise, asmany causes of action as they may have against an opposing party, such &oinder of causes of action issub&ect to the condition, inter alia, that the &oinder shall not include special civil actions governed byspecial rules$0ere, there %as a mis&oinder of causes of action$ The action for partition filed by the petitioners could notbe &oined %ith the action for the rescission of the said donation inter vivos in favor of Florante$ ;est it beoverlooked, an action for partition is a special civil action governed by Rule of the Rules of Court %hilean action for rescission is an ordinary civil action governed by the ordinary rules of civil procedure$ Thevariance in the procedure in the special civil action of partition and in the ordinary civil action of rescissionprecludes their &oinder in one complaint or their being tried in a single proceeding to avoid confusion in


7/17

determining %hat rules shall govern the conduct of the proceedings as %ell as in the determination of thepresence of re2uisite elements of each particular cause of action$

" mis&oined cause of action, if not severed upon motion of a party or by the court sua sponte, may bead&udicated by the court together %ith the other causes of action$

+evertheless, mis&oinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal$ 'ndeed, the courts have thepo%er, acting upon the motion of a party to the case or sua sponte, to order the severance of themis&oined cause of action to be proceeded %ith separately$ 0o%ever, if there is no ob&ection to theimproper &oinder or the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, then there e(ists no bar in thesimultaneous ad&udication of all the erroneously &oined causes of action$

=is&oinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a 2uestion of &urisdiction of the court to hear andproceed %ith the case$ They are not even accepted grounds for dismissal thereof$ 'nstead, under theRules of Court, the mis&oinder of causes of action and parties involve an implied admission of the courtLs

&urisdiction$ 't ackno%ledges the po%er of the court, acting upon the motion of a party to the case or on itso%n initiative, to order the severance of the mis&oined cause of action, to be proceeded %ith separately incase of mis&oinder of causes of action- andBor the dropping of a party and the severance of any claim

against said mis&oined party, also to be proceeded %ith separately in case of mis&oinder of parties-$

't should be emphasi ed that the foregoing rule only applies if the court trying the case has &urisdictionover all of the causes of action therein not%ithstanding the mis&oinder of the same$ 'f the court trying thecase has no &urisdiction over a mis&oined cause of action, then such mis&oined cause of action has to besevered from the other causes of action, and if not so severed, any ad&udication rendered by the court%ith respect to the same %ould be a nullity$

0ere, Florante posed no ob&ection, and neither did the RTC direct the severance of the petitionersL actionfor rescission from their action for partition$ )hile this may be a patent omission on the part of the RTC,this does not constitute a ground to assail the validity and correctness of its decision$ The RTC validlyad&udicated the issues raised in the actions for partition and rescission filed by the petitioners$

'n its Decision dated *ctober . , .!!9, the C" pointed out that the said action for rescission should havebeen filed by the petitioners independently of the proceedings in the action for partition$ 't opined that theaction for rescission could not be lumped up %ith the action for partition through a mere supplementalpleading$

)e do not agree$ " supplemental pleading may raise a ne% cause of action as long as it has some relation to the originalcause of action set forth in the original complaint$The petitionersL supplemental pleading merely amplified the original cause of action, on account of thegratuitous conveyance of ;ot +o$ #9! and half of ;ot +o$ #9! after the filing of the original complaintand prayed for additional reliefs, i$e$, rescission$ 'ndeed, the petitioners claim that the said lots form partof the estate of pouses @aylon, but cannot be partitioned unless the gratuitous conveyance of the sameis rescinded$ Thus, the principal issue raised by the petitioners in their original complaint remained thesame$

$AN%A VS !RMI'A


8/17

"A('S: The present controversy arose from a Petition for Certiorari and prohibition challenging theconstitutionality of 3* +o$ 69?, issued by P8="$ Petitioners characteri e their action as a class suit filedon their o%n behalf and on behalf of all their co>employees at the +ational Printing *ffice +P*-$

The +P* %as created by virtue of 3* +o$ .?5 by Pres$ Cory "2uino %hich provided, among others, thecreation of the +P* from the merger of the 8overnment Printing *ffice and the relevant printing units of

the Philippine 'nformation "gency P'"-$ ection of 3(ecutive *rder +o$ .?5 states thatO

GThe *ffice shall have ;clu +r 8


9/17

0ere, the petition failed to state the number of +P* employees %ho %ould be affected by the assailed 3*and %ho %ere allegedly represented by petitioners$ 't %as the 8, as counsel for respondents, %hopointed out that there %ere about 5# employees in the +P*$ The 9 petitioners undeniably comprised asmall fraction of the +P* employees %hom they claimed to represent$ ubse2uently, 6. of the originalpetitioners e(ecuted an "ffidavit of Desistance, %hile one signed a letter denying ever signing the petition,ostensibly reducing the number of petitioners to 6#$ Counsel of the petitioners challenged the validity of the desistance or %ithdra%al of some of the petitioners and insinuated that such desistance %as due topressure from people close to the seat of po%er$ till, even if %e %ere to disregard the affidavit of desistance filed by some of the petitioners, it is highly doubtful that a sufficient, representative number of +P* employees have instituted this purported class suit$ Furthermore, only .! petitioners %ere in factmentioned in the jurat as having duly subscribed the petition before the notary public$ 'n other %ords, only.! petitioners effectively instituted the present case$

C previously held that %here the interests of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class they seekto represent are diametrically opposed, the class suit %ill not prosper$

0ere a =anifestation of Desistance %as filed by the President of the +ational Printing *ffice )orkers "ssociation +"P*)"- e(pressing opposition to the filing of the instant petition in any court$ 3ven if %etake into account the contention of petitioners counsel that the +"P*)" President had no legal standing

to file such manifestation, the said pleading is a clear indication that there is an apparent conflict bet%eenpetitionersL interests and those of the persons %hom they claim to represent$ ince it cannot be said thatpetitioners sufficiently represent the interests of the entire class, the instant case cannot be properlytreated as a class suit$

G.R. No. 153744 No r 27, 2009

ROG!R V. NAVARRO . &ON. JOS! L. !S(O$I%O, )r 8 Ju 8 , R'( $ra ch 37, (a8aya Oro ( y, a >AR!N '. GO, o 8 u u r h a >ARGO !N'!R)RIS!S

F"CT : Respondent aren T$ 8o filed t%o complaints before the RTC for replevin andBor sum of money%ith damages against +avarro$ 'n these complaints, aren 8o prayed that the RTC issue %rits of replevinfor the sei ure of t%o .- motor vehicles in +avarroLs possession$ 'n his "ns%ers, +avarro alleged as aspecial affirmative defense that the t%o complaints stated no cause of action, since aren 8o %as not aparty to the ;ease "greements %ith *ption to Purchase collectively, the lease agreements- 4 theactionable documents on %hich the complaints %ere based$

RTC> dismissed the case but later on set aside the dismissal on the presumption that 8lenn 8oLshusband- leasing business is a con&ugal property and thus ordered aren 8o to file a motion for the

inclusion of 8lenn 8o as co>plaintiff as per Rule #, ection 6 of the Rules of Court$

+avarro filed a petition for certiorari %ith the C"$ "ccording to +avarro, a complaint %hich failed to state acause of action could not be converted into one %ith a cause of action by mere amendment or supplemental pleading$

C" > denied petition$

' A3: )hether or not aren 8o is a real party in interest$


10/17


11/17

)e hold that since 8lenn 8o is not strictly an indispensable party in the action to recover possession of the leased vehicles, he only needs to be impleaded as a pro>forma party to the suit, based on ection #,Rule # of the Rules, %hich states:

ection #$ pouses as parties$ 4 0usband and %ife shall sue or be sued &ointly, e(cept as provided byla%$

3ven assuming that 8lenn 8o is an indispensable party to the action, mis&oinder or non>&oinder of indispensable parties in a complaint is not a ground for dismissal of action as per Rule 6, ection 11 of the Rules of Court$

ROS!N%O $A(ALSO, RO%RIGO $A(ALSO, MAR(ILIANA $. %O$LAS, '!ROLIO $A(ALSO,ALI)IO $A(ALSO, JR., MARIO $A(ALSO, ILLIAM $A(ALSO, ALI)IO $A(ALSO III a(RIS'I'A $. $A?!S, + o r ,

. MA@IMO )A%IGOS, "LAVIANO MA$#*O, GA#%!N(IO )A%IGOS, %OMINGO )A%IGOS,VI('ORIA ). A$AR #! , LILIA ). GA$ISON, 'IMO'!O )A%IGOS, )!R"!('O )A%IGOS, )RIS(ASALAR%A, "LORA G#IN'O, $!NI'A '!M)LA, SO'!RO )A%IGOS, AN%R!S )A%IGOS, !MILIO)A%IGOS, %!M!'RIO )A%IGOS, JR., !N(!SLAO )A%IGOS, N!LL* )A%IGOS, !@)!%I'O)A%IGOS, &!NR* )A%IGOS a !NRI #! ). MALA AR'!, r +o .G.R. No. 173192, A+r l 1 , 2004

(AR)IO MORAL!S, J. :F"CT : This case involves a parcel of land located in Cebu %hich is covered by an *CT in the name of 16 co>o%ners !a"o#$ the" %ere Si"& icio, I$#acio a#d Fortu#ata'. Respondents (a)i"o, F a*ia#o,+aude#cio, Do"i#$o a#d ictoria' claimed that they are the children andBor grandchildren of theaforementioned co>o%ners$ *n the other hand, petitioners Rosendo and Rodrigo are heirs of "lipio, r$!hi#di siya co-o%#er' %ho, during his lifetime secured Ta( Declarations covering the lot %ithout any legalbasis that they have been leasing portions of the lot to persons %ho built houses thereon, and Rosendohas been living in a house built on a portion of the lot and that demands to vacate and efforts atconciliation proved futile$ "s a result, the respondents filed before the RTC a Complaint against thepetitioners Rosendo and Rodrigo for 2uieting of title, declaration of nullity of documents, recovery of possession, and damages$

'n their "ns%er, petitioners Rosendo and Rodrigo claimed that their father "lipio, r$ purchased via deedsof sale the shares in the lot of Fortunata, implicio, )enceslao, 8eronimo, and Feli( from their respectiveheirs, and that "lipio, r$ ac2uired the shares of the other co>o%ners of the lot by e(traordinary ac2uisitiveprescription through continuous, open, peaceful, and adverse possession thereof in the concept of ano%ner since 1 # $

@y %ay of Reply and "ns%er to the DefendantsE Counterclaim, the aforementioned respondents allegedthat the deeds of sale on %hich Rosendo and Rodrigo base their claim of o%nership of portions of the lotare spurious, but assuming that they are not, laches had set in against "lipio, r$ and that the shares of the other co>o%ners of the lot cannot be ac2uired through laches or prescription$

The aforementioned respondents filed an "mended Complaint impleading as additional defendants "lipio,r$Es other heirs &etitio#ers (arce ia#a Dob as, Tero io aca so, A i&io aca so, /r., (ario aca so,

0i ia" aca so, A i&io aca so III, a#d Christi#e . a1es. - till later, the respondents filed a econd "mended Complaint impleading as additional plaintiffs the other heirs of registered co>o%ner =a(imiano

res&o#de#ts Ti"oteo 2adi$os, 2er3ecto 2adi$os, Frisca Sa arda, F ora 4ui#to, e#ita Te"& a, Sotero2adi$os, A#dres 2adi$os, a#d E"i io 2adi$os'.

'n their "ns%er to the econd "mended Complaint, petitioners contended that the econd "mendedComplaint should be dismissed in vie% of the failure to implead other heirs of the other registered o%nersof the lot %ho are indispensable parties$


12/17

" Third "mended Complaint %as thereafter impleading as additional plaintiffs the heirs of )enceslaores&o#de#ts De"etrio 2adi$os, /r., 0e#ces ao 2adi$os, a#d Ne y 2adi$os' and the heirs of Feli(res&o#de#ts E)&edito 2adi$os !E)&edito', He#ry 2adi$os, a#d E#ri5ue 2. (a a6arte'.

Respondents admit that Teodulfo Padigos, an heir of implicio, %as not impleaded$ They contend,ho%ever, that the omission did not deprive the trial court of &urisdiction because "rticle #?9 of the CivilCode states that any of the co>o%ners may bring an action in e&ectment$

The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents declaring them to be entitled to the o%nership and possessionof the lot in litigation and declaring as null and void the Deeds of "bsolute ale$The petitioners appealed$ =ean%hile, the trial court issued a %rit of e(ecution %hich %as implemented by,among other things, demolishing the houses constructed on the lot$The C" affirmed the RTC decision$ C" denied =otion for Reconsideration$ 0ence this present Petition for Revie% on Certiorari$

' A3: )*+ Teodulfo is an indispensable party in the case

03;D: /es$ The action is not for e&ectment rather for 2uieting of title, declaration of nullity of documents,recovery of possession and o%nership, and damages$ Arce a#o *. Court o3 A&&ea s defines indispensableparties under ection 9 of Rule 6, Rules of Court as follo%s: 2arties-i#-i#terest %ithout %ho" there ca#be #o 3i#a deter"i#atio# o3 a# actio# $ "s such, they must be &oined either as plaintiffs or as defendants$The general rule %ith reference to the making of parties in a civil action re2uires, of course, the &oinder of all necessary parties %here possible, and the &oinder of all indispensable parties under any and allconditions, their presence being a si#e 5ua #o# for the e(ercise of &udicial po%er$ 't is precisely %hen anindispensable party is not before the court that- the action should be dismissed$ The absence of anindispensable party renders all subse2uent actions of the court null and void for %ant of authority to act,not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present$ The absence then of an indispensableparty renders all subse2uent actions of a court null and void for %ant of authority to act, not only as to theabsent party but even as to those present$

O# the issue o3 authe#city o3 docu"e#ts !i.e. Deed o3 sa e i# 3a*or o3 A i&io' ba7a ita#o#$

+o Forgery$ ignatures geunuine and authentic$ Forgery, as any other mechanism of fraud, must be

proved clearly and convincingly, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery$The RTC andC" relied on the findings of


13/17

ANI(IA VAL%! -'ALLORIN . &!IRS O" J#ANI'O 'ARONA, R +r y (ARLOS 'ARONA,ROG!LIO 'ARONA a LO#R%!S 'ARONA

F"CT : The Taronas alleged that the "ssessorLs *ffice of =orong in @ataan cancelled Ta( Declaration# 6 in the name of 7uanito Tarona covering ,1? s2uare meters of land in =orong, @ataan$ Thecancellation %as based on an unsigned though notari ed affidavit that 7uanito allegedly e(ecuted in favor of petitioner Tallorin, =argarita Pastelero


14/17

@ut the TaronasL action cannot be dismissed outright$ "s the Court held in Plasabas v$ Court of "ppeals,.. the non>&oinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal$ ection 11, Rule 6 of the 1 9 Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non>&oinder or mis&oinder of parties and allo%s the amendment of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, throughmotion or on order of the court on its o%n initiative$ *nly if plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensableparty, despite the order of the court, may it dismiss the action$

(r olo8o . J! M AGRO-IN%#S'RIAL (OR)ORA'ION

M oBa, J.

Facts:

Petitioners 7esus 8$ Crisologo and +annette @$ Crisologo pouses Crisologo- %ere the plaintiffs in t%ocollection cases in RTC, @ranch 15, Davao City against Robert ;imso, o eng oc, et al$ T%o .-parcels of land of the defendants %ere later on attached, and the TCTLs therein %ere properly annotated$

*n the other hand, the same defendants, Robert ;imso and o eng oc %ere also sued in another collection case filed in RTC @ranch ? Davao City by petitioner y en @en$ ;ater, RTC>@r$ ? rendered itsdecision based on a compromise agreement %herein the defendants in said case %ere directed totransfer the sub&ect properties in favor of y en @en$ The latter subse2uently sold the sub&ect propertiesto one +ilda ;am %ho, in turn, sold the same to 73)=

" year later, pouses Crisologo %on the suit against o eng ok$ " %rit of e(ecution %as favored, andthe sub&ect properties including the t%o parcels of land %ere sub&ect to a public auction sale$ ;ater, theyprayed for the issuance of a %rit of preliminary in&unction to prevent the public sale of the sub&ectproperties$ The &udgement %as rendered in their favor because no motion for intervention %as filed prior to the rendition of the &udgment$ 73)= moved to declare the defendants in default %hich %as granted in

an order$ pouses Crisologo then argued that they could not be deemed as defaulting parties becausethey %ere not referred to in the pertinent motion and order of default$

'n .!1!, pouses Crisologo filed %ith the C" a petition for certiorari under Rule 5 of the Rules of Court2uestioning the RTC>@r$ 1# orders> all of %hich denied their motion to be recogni ed as parties$ C$"$denied their petition$

0ence this petition

'ssue: )hether or not the the C" correctly ruled that RTC>@r$ 1# acted %ithout grave abuse of discretionin failing to recogni e pouses Crisologo as indispensable parties in the case for cancellation of lien$$

0eld: +o$ 'n an action for the cancellation of memorandum annotated at the back of a certificate of title,the persons considered as indispensable include those %hose liens appear as annotations pursuant to

ection 1!? of P$D$ +o$ 15. $

0ere, undisputed is the fact that pouses CrisologoLs liens %ere indeed annotated at the back of TCT+os$ 6.5 95 and 6.5 9 $ Thus, as persons %ith their liens annotated, they stand to be benefited or in&ured by any order relative to the cancellation of annotations in the pertinent TCTs$ 'n other %ords, theyare as indispensable as 73)= itself in the final disposition of the case for cancellation, being one of themany lien holders$


15/17

"s indispensable parties, pouses Crisologo should have been &oined as defendants in the case pursuantto ection 9, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, to %it:

3C$ 9$ Compulsory &oinder of indispensable parties$ N Parties in interest %ithout %hom no finaldetermination can be had of an action shall be &oined either as plaintiffs or defendants$ 19

The reason behind this compulsory &oinder of indispensable parties is the complete determination of allpossible issues, not only bet%een the parties themselves but also as regards other persons %ho may beaffected by the &udgment$

G.R. No. 146610 July 29, 2013)OLI(! S!NIOR S#)!RIN'!N%!N' %IMA)IN'O MA(A A%I$ . '&! )&ILI))IN! NA'IONAL)OLI(! %IR!('ORA'! "OR )!RSONN!L AN% R!(OR%S MANAG!M!N')!RAL'A, J.:

F"CT : Police enior uperintendent =aca%adib, pursuant to 8eneral *rder +o$ 11 ? issued by Chief of Directorial taff of P+P, %as among those commissioned officers %ho %ere sub&ect to compulsoryretirement on various dates in the month of 7anuary .!!. by virtue of their attainment of the compulsoryretirement age of 5 $ =aca%adibLs records as reflected in the files of the P+P Records =anagementDivision indicate that he %as born on 7anuary 11, 1 # 5 yBo-$

=aca%adib filed an application for late registration of his birth %ith the =unicipal Civil RegistrarEs *ffice of =ulondo, ;anao del ur$ 'n the said application, petitioner s%ore under oath that he %as born on 7anuary11, 1 5 $ The application %as, subse2uently, approved$ Then, he filed %ith the RTC of =ara%i City,@ranch ?, a Petition for Correction of 3ntry in the Public ervice Records Regarding the @irth Date Nalleging, among others, that he %as born on 7anuary 11, 1 5 # yBo-$

RTC ruled in favor of =aca%adib ordering the follo%ing for the correction of his birthdate from 7an$ 11,

1 # to 7anuary 11, 1 5 -: P+P Records =anagement, +"P*;C*= Personnel and Records=anagement ervice and Records of C C$ ubse2uently, the P+P Directorate for Personnel andRecords =anagement filed a Petition for "nnulment of 7udgment %ith Prayer for the 'ssuance of aTemporary Restraining *rder andBor )rit of Preliminary 'n&unction %ith the C", seeking to nullify theabove>mentioned Decision of the RTC on the ground that the trial court failed to ac2uire &urisdiction over the P+P, an unimpleaded indispensable party$ C" granted the petition$ =aca%adib filed a =R, but C"denied$ 0ence, this petition$

' A3: )hether or not P+P>DPR= is an indispensable party in the instance case and that the RTC havenot ac2uired &urisdiction over the person of the P+P>DPR=$

03;D: /es, P+P>DPR= is an indispensable party$

The Court agrees %ith the ruling of the C" that it is the integrity and correctness of the public records inthe custody of the P+P, +ational Police Commission +"P*;C*=- and Civil ervice Commission C C-%hich are involved and %hich %ould be affected by any decision rendered in the petition for correctionfiled by =aca%adib$ The aforementioned government agencies are, thus, re2uired to be made parties tothe proceeding$ They are indispensable parties, %ithout %hom no final determination of the case can behad$ "n indispensable party is defined as one %ho has such an interest in the controversy or sub&ectmatter that a final ad&udication cannot be made, in his absence, %ithout in&uring or affecting that interest$

'n the fairly recent case of 8o v$ Distinction Properties Development and Construction, 'nc$, the Court hadthe occasion to reiterate the principle that: Ander ection 9, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, parties in

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_196894_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_196894_2014.html#fnt17


16/17

interest %ithout %hom no final determination can be had of an action shall be &oined as plaintiffs or defendants$ 'f there is a failure to implead an indispensable party, any &udgment rendered %ould have noeffectiveness$

'n the instant case, there is a necessity to implead the P+P, +"P*;C*= and C C because they stand tobe adversely affected by petitionerEs petition %hich involves substantial and controversial alterations inpetitionerEs service records$ =oreover, as correctly pointed out by the

*ffice of the olicitor 8eneral * 8-, if petitionerEs service is e(tended by ten years, the government,through the P+P, shall be burdened by the additional salary and benefits that %ould have to be given topetitioner during such e(tension$ Thus, aside from the * 8, all other agencies %hich may be affected bythe change should be notified or represented as the truth is best ascertained under an adversary systemof &ustice$

"s the above>mentioned agencies %ere not impleaded in this case much less given notice of theproceedings, the decision of the trial court granting petitionerEs prayer for the correction of entries in hisservice records, is void$ "s mentioned above, the absence of an indispensable party renders allsubse2uent actions of the court null and void for %ant of authority to act, not only as to the absent partiesbut even as to those present$

G.R. No. 194010 Au8u 12, 2013R!)#$LI( O" '&! )&ILI))IN!S . %R. NORMA S. L#GSANA* #*)!RAL'A, J.:

F"CT : Respondent filed a Petition for Correction of 3ntry in her Certificate of ;ive @irth and impleadedas respondent is the ;ocal Civil Registrar ;CR- of 8ingoog City$ 'n her petition, she made the follo%ingallegations: a- That she is the illegitimate daughter of y Ton and otera ;ugsanay, %ho %ere never married, so she had to follo% the surname of her mother b- That her Certificate of ;ive @irth sho%s thather full name is "nita y %hen in fact she is allegedly kno%n to her family and friends as +orma $;ugsanay c- That her school records, PRC @oard of =edicine Certificate, and passport bear the name

+orma $ ;ugsanay and d- That she is a Filipino citi en and not Chinese, and all her siblings bear thesurname ;ugsanay and are all Filipinos$

Respondent allegedly filed earlier a petition for correction of entries %ith the *ffice of ;CR of 8ingoog Cityto effect the corrections on her name and citi enship %hich %as supposedly granted$ 0o%ever, the + *records did not bear such changes$ 0ence, the petition before the RTC$

The RTC issued an *rder finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance and setting the casefor hearing, %ith the directive that the said *rder be published in a ne%spaper of general circulation in theCity of 8ingoog and the Province of =isamis *riental at least once a %eek for three 6- consecutive%eeks at the e(pense of respondent, and that the order and petition be furnished the * 8 and the CityProsecutorLs *ffice for their information and guidance$ Pursuant to the RTC *rder, respondent complied%ith the publication re2uirement$

The RTC granted the respondentLs petition and ordered the ;CR of 8ingoog City to effect the correctionor change of the entries in the Certificate of ;ive @irth of petitionerLs name and citi enship so that theentries %ould be: a- +"=3: +*R=" / ;A8 "+"/ and b- +"T'*+";'T/BC'T' 3+ 0'P: F';'P'+*$ TheRTC concluded that respondentLs petition %ould neither pre&udice the government nor any third party$ 'talso held that the names +orma y ;ugsanay and "nita y refer to one and the same person,especially since the ;CR of 8ingoog City has effected the correction$ Considering that respondent hascontinuously used and has been kno%n since childhood as +orma y ;ugsanay and as a Filipinociti en, the RTC granted the petition to avoid confusion$

The C" affirmed in toto the RTC *rder$ 't held that respondentLs failure to implead other indispensableparties %as cured upon the publication of the *rder and by serving a copy of the notice to the ;CR, the


17/17

* 8 and the City ProsecutorLs *ffice$ "s to %hether the petition is a collateral attack on respondentLsfiliation, the C" ruled in favor of respondent, considering that her parents %ere not legally married andthat her siblingsL birth certificates uniformly state that their surname is ;ugsanay and their citi enship isFilipino$ PetitionerLs =R %as denied$

' A3: )hether or not the petition is dismissible for failure to implead indispensable parties$

03;D: /3 $ 'n this case, respondent sought the correction of entries in her birth certificate, particularlythose pertaining to her first name, surname and citi enship$ he sought the correction allegedly to reflectthe name %hich she has been kno%n for since childhood, including her legal documents such as passportand school and professional records$ he like%ise relied on the birth certificates of her full blood siblings%ho bear the surname ;ugsanay instead of y and citi enship of Filipino instead of Chinese$ Thechanges, ho%ever, are obviously not mere clerical as they touch on respondentLs filiation and citi enship$'n changing her surname from y %hich is the surname of her father- to ;ugsanay %hich is thesurname of her mother-, she, in effect, changes her status from legitimate to illegitimate and in changingher citi enship from Chinese to Filipino, the same affects her rights and obligations in this country$ Clearly,the changes are substantial$

't %as only the ;CR of 8ingoog City %ho %as impleaded as respondent in the petition belo%$ This,

not%ithstanding, the RTC granted her petition and allo%ed the correction sought by respondent, %hichdecision %as affirmed in toto by the C"$

The fact that the notice of hearing %as published in a ne%spaper of general circulation and notice thereof %as served upon the tate %ill not change the nature of the proceedings taken$ " reading of ections #and 5, Rule 1!? of the Rules of Court sho%s that the Rules mandate t%o sets of notices to differentpotential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and another given to other persons%ho are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affectedparties$ ummons must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts %ith &urisdiction butto comply %ith the re2uirements of fair play and due process to afford the person concerned theopportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses$

)hile there may be cases %here the Court held that the failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication of the notice of hearing, earnest efforts %ere made bypetitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties$ uch failure %as like%ise e(cused %here theinterested parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings %hen there is no actual or presumptive a%areness of the e(istence of the interested parties or %hen a party is inadvertently left out$

't is clear from the foregoing discussion that %hen a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry inthe civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations, including those on citi enship,legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance %ith the re2uirements of Rule 1!? ofthe Rules of Court is mandated$ 'f the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate action %herein all parties %homay be affected by the entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief %ould beset open, the conse2uence of %hich might be detrimental and far reaching$

Thus, the C" decision on the Petition for Correction of 3ntry of Certificate of ;ive @irth filed by respondentDr$ +orma $ ;ugsanay Ay, is nullified$

civpro, cases on rules 1-3 (compiled) (1)

Documents