Cases On Rule 1 To 5
Cases On Rule 1 To 5
DOCTRINE/RULING: ISSUE: W/N the RTC judge erred in denying the motion to
Indispensable party is one whose interest will be dismiss against CBC for not impleading the indispensable
affected by the judgment and without whom there party?
can be no final determination of the case. In this
case, the other co-owner is not necessary to be DOCTRINE/RULING:
impleaded in this case because the contract of An indispensable party is a party in interest,
agency is between Constante and Antigo only. without whom no final determination can be had
Therefore, the mandatory joinder of indispensable of an action.
party is not applicable on this case. The absence of Oliver – One from the case does not
hamper the trial court in resolving the dispute
ORQUIOLA VS CA between the Oliver – Two (respondent) and CBC
FACTS: (petitioner).
Oliver – One participation is to enable the CBC to
Pura Ledesma is the owner of lot 689 in Tandang
file claim against her. Hence, CBC should file a
Sora, QC. This parcel of land was adjacent to Lot
third party-complaint instead of dismissing the
707 owned by Ped Herminigilda Pedro.
case.
Pedro sold the lot to Lising Realty. The Rule 3 Section 7 will not apply in this case,
Lising Realty subdivided the lots into smaller lots instead the Sec. 11 of Rule 3 will apply – non joiner
and some portion of it was sold to spouses of parties is not a ground for dismissal. The CBC
Orquiola. should be impleaded Oliver – One on the basis of
Sometime in 1969, Ledesma filed a complaint the liability to them who falsely contracted a loan.
against Pedro and Lising for encroaching of lot 689.
RTC rendered decision against Pedro and Lising
and solidarily liable and ordered writ of DAVIS VS PARAGAS
demolition. FACTS:
The spouses Orquiola as buyer in good faith appeal David, Paragas and Lobrin formed a business
to CA for TRO and they were not impleaded in the venture named Olympia International Ltd located
civil case as indispensable party hence, the decision in Hongkong.
rendered by the RTC cannot be enforced against Olympia has offices in HK and Philippines.
them and this is a violation of due process. David is the one who is in charge in marketing in
the Philippines office.
ISSUE: W/N judgement of the RTC in the civil case cannot David was tasks to remit the money from HK
be enforced against them for failure to implead them in the under the pares pares program which will be
civil case? deposited to Olympias RCBC account and then will
pay its planholders and shares of directors.
DOCTRINE/RULING:
Out of 82M which includes the 30% payment for
the subscribers. It was discovered by Lobrin that
only 19M was remitted or deposited to RCBC bank.
BODs move for the removal of David and David
filed a declaratory relief, sum of money and
damages.
Paragas and Lobrin filed answers with series
counterclaims. But the parties reach in the comprise
agreement under Olympia as a party and
withdrawal of counterclaims.
LBP VS CACAYURAN
FACTS:
Municipality of Agoo entered into a loan agreement
with LBP in order to refinance the Redevelopment
Plan of Agoo Public Plaza, and some portion of the
plaza was used as a collateral for the said loan.
Cacayuran as a resident opposed in the loan
agreement as well as by means of its funding. He
claims that it is violative to the law, detrimental to
public interest.
RTC ruled that loan was void and it was affirmed
by the CA.
LBP appeal for dismissal that Municipal of Agoo
was not impleaded as an indispensable party to
case
DOCTIRINE/RULING:
Failure to implead any indispensable party is not a
ground for the dismissal of the complaint. The
proper remedy is to implead them. In this case,
Cacayuran failed to implead the Municipality, a
real party in interest and an indispensable party
that stands to be directly affected by any judicial
resolution. It is the contracting party and the owner
of the public plaza. It stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment of the case.
complaint/petition for the petitioner/plaintiff’s failure to
comply therefor.
Carabeo vs Dingco
Facts:
Carabeo and spouses Dingco entered into a
contract “Kasunduan sa bilihan ng Karapatan sa
lupa”
Carabeo agreed to sell their rights over the land
located in Orani, Bataan for 38,000.
Spouses made a DP of 10,000 and installments
accumulated to 9,100.
But on the balance of 18,900 Carabeo refuse to
accept because there was still needed to fix about
the on-going squabble.
Spouses Dingco filed for specific performance on
LOTTE PHIL. CO., INC V DELA CRUZ ET.AL the RTC and Carabeo as an answer the sales was
TOPIC: INDISPENSIBLE PARTY; NON- void. RTC ruled in favor of Spousesand CA
JOINDER – EFFECTS affirmed.
Facts: 1995 until 2000, 7J Maintenance and During the pendency of the case Carabeo died.
Janitorial Services (7J) entered into a contract with Lotte to
provide manpower. In compliance with the contract, and to ISSUE: W/N the death of Carabeo would result to the
accommodate the needs of Lotte for workers, Dela Cruz dismissal of the case?
were hired and assigned to Lotte as repackers or sealers.
However, Lotte dispensed with their services allegedly due DOCTRINE/ISSUE::
to the expiration/termination of the service contract by Death of Carabeo is not a valid ground for
Lotte with 7J. Respondents were never called back again. dismissal of the action because when the actions
LA declared 7J as employer of respondents and finding 7J involves property rights it will survives. Judgement
guilty of illegal dismissal. NLRC denied the MR. is still enforceable against her representative or
CA reversed LA and NLRC and declared Lotte as the real successor-in-interest.
employer of respondents and that 7J who engaged in labor-
only contracting was merely the agent of Lotte.
De La Cruz vs Joaquin : 162788 : July 28, 2005
FACTS: The case originated from a Complaint for the
Issue: WON 7J is an indispensable party and should have recovery of possession and ownership, the cancellation of
been impleaded in respondent’s petition in the CA title, and damages, filed by Pedro Joaquin against
petitioners in the RTC. The RTC ruled in favor of
Held: YES. An indispensable party is a party in interest respondent ordering herein petitioners to reconvey the
without whom no final determination can be had of an property upon his payment. Petitioners assert that the
action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or RTC’s Decision was invalid for lack of jurisdiction claiming
defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is that respondent died during the pendency of the case and
mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is there being no substitution by the heirs, the trial court
necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is the allegedly lacked jurisdiction over the litigation.
authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a
case. Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to ISSUE: WON the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case
a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot attain real upon the death of Pedro Joaquin?
finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of HELD: NO. When a party to a pending action dies and the
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as claim is not extinguished, the Rules of Court require a
to those present. substitution of the deceased. The procedure is specifically
Here, 7J is an indispensable party. It is a party in interest governed by Section 16 of Rule 3. The rule on the
because it will be affected by the outcome of the substitution of parties was crafted to protect every party’s
case. Hence, the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over 7J. No right to due process. The estate of the deceased party will
final ruling on this matter can be had without impleading continue to be properly represented in the suit through the
7J, whose inclusion is necessary for the effective and duly appointed legal representative. A formal substitution
complete resolution of the case and in order to accord all by heirs is not necessary when as in the present case, they
parties with due process and fair play. themselves voluntarily appear, participate in the case, and
In Domingo v. Scheer, we held that the non-joinder of present evidence in defense of the deceased. These actions
indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an negate any claim that the right to due process was violated.
action and the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed The records of the present case contain a “Motion for
to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the Substitution of Party Plaintiff” filed before the CA. The rule
court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any on the substitution by heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction,
stage of the action and/or such times as are just. If the but a requirement of due process. Thus, when due process
petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party despite is not violated, as when the right of the representative or
the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the heir is recognized and protected, noncompliance or belated
formal compliance with the Rules cannot affect the validity
of a promulgated decision. Mere failure to substitute for a property left by Conrado, Sr. He filed a complaint for
deceased plaintiff is not a sufficient ground to nullify a trial partition but did not implead Mateo, Sr.’s children.
court’s decision. The alleging party must prove that there RTC found that through the subject document, Santiago
was an undeniable violation of due process. became a co-owner of the subject land and, as such, has the
right to demand the partition of the same. However,
Santiago did not validly acquire Mateo, Sr.’s share over the
NAVARRO VS ESCOBIDO subject land, considering that Felcon (son of Mateo Sr.)
FACTS: Respondent Karen T. Go filed two complaints admitted the lack of authority to bind his siblings with
before the RTC for replevin and/or sum of money with regard to Mateo, Sr.’s share.
damages against Navarro. In these complaints, Karen Go CA dismissed Santiago’s complaint for partition. It held the
prayed that the RTC issue writs of replevin for the seizure Mateo, Sr.’s children are indispensable parties to the
of two (2) motor vehicles in Navarro’s possession. In his judicial partition and thus, their non-inclusion as
Answers, Navarro alleged as a special affirmative defense defendants would necessarily result in its dismissal.
that the two complaints stated no cause of action, since
Karen Go was not a party to the Lease Agreements with
Issue: WON the action for partition proper without
Option to Purchase (collectively, the lease agreements) —
the actionable documents on which the complaints were impleading Mateo, Sr.’s children
based. RTC dismissed the case but set aside the dismissal Held: No because the co-heirs are indispensable parties.
on the presumption that Glenn Go’s (husband) leasing They have rights over the subject land and, as such, should
business is a conjugal property and thus ordered Karen Go be impleaded as indispensable parties in an action for
to file a motion for the inclusion of Glenn Go as co-plaintiff partition.
as per Rule 4, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Navarro filed An indispensable party is one whose interest will be
a petition for certiorari with the CA. According to Navarro, affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and without
a complaint which failed to state a cause of action could not whom no final determination of the case can be had. The
be converted into one with a cause of action by mere party’s interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the
amendment or supplemental pleading. CA denied petition. relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other
parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding
ISSUE: Whether or not Karen Go is a real party in interest. is an absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a
resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court
HELD: YES. Karen Go is the registered owner of the which is effective, complete, or equitable. Thus, the absence
business name Kargo Enterprises, as the registered owner of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of
of Kargo Enterprises, Karen Go is the party who will the court null and void, for want of authority to act, not
directly benefit from or be injured by a judgment in this only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
case. Thus, contrary to Navarro’s contention, Karen Go is (Domingo v. Scheer). The non-joinder of indispensable
the real party-in-interest, and it is legally incorrect to say
parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The
that her Complaint does not state a cause of action because
remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be
her name did not appear in the Lease Agreement that her
indispensable.
husband signed in behalf of Kargo Enterprises.
Glenn and Karen Go are effectively co-owners of Kargo
In an action of partition – co owners are indispensable
Enterprises and the properties registered under this name;
parties.
hence, both have an equal right to seek possession of these
properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely
ERESA CHAVES BIACO,Petitioner,
the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-
vs.
owned property, is an indispensable party thereto. The
PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK, Respondent.
other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are not
even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be
accorded in the suit even without their participation, since FACTS:
the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all
co-owners. Ernesto Biaco is the husband of petitioner Ma. Teresa
We hold that since Glenn Go is not strictly an indispensable Chaves Biaco. While employed in the Philippine
party in the action to recover possession of the leased Countryside Rural Bank (PCRB) as branch manager,
vehicles, he only needs to be impleaded as a pro-forma Ernesto obtained several loans from the respondent bank.
party to the suit, based on Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules,
which states: As security for the payment of the said loans, Ernesto
Section 4.Spouses as parties. — Husband and wife shall sue executed a real estate mortgage in favor of the bank
or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. covering the parcel of land which the real estate mortgages
Even assuming that Glenn Go is an indispensable party to bore the signatures of the spouses Biaco.
the action, misjoinder or non-joinder of indispensable
parties in a complaint is not a ground for dismissal of action When Ernesto failed to settle the above-mentioned loans on
as per Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court. its due date, respondent bank through counsel sent him a
written demand,however, proved futile.
Divinagracia vs. Parilla
Facts: Conrado, Sr. owned a parcel of land. He had 2 Respondent bank filed a complaint for foreclosure of
children with his 1st wife and 7 children with his 2nd mortgage against the spouses Ernesto and Teresa Biaco
wife. He also begot 3 illegitimate children. Both Mateo, Sr. before the RTC of Misamis Oriental. Summons was served
(7 children) and Cebeleo, Sr. (2) pre-deceased Conrado, Sr. to the spouses Biaco through Ernesto at his office (Export
Santiago, who bought the shares of majority of the heirs of a
and Industry Bank). The RTC ruled against them; a writ of with some competent person in charge thereof
execution was served on the spouses. in accordance with Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court.
Petitioner sought the annulment of the Regional Trial Court
decision contending, among others, that the trial court
failed to acquire jurisdiction because summons were served
on her through her husband without any explanation as to BPI Family Savings Bank Inc vs Sps Yujuico
why personal service could not be made. The CA affirmed G.R. No. 175796 July 22, 2015
RTC decision invoking that judicial foreclosure proceedings
are actions quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the Facts: On August 22, 1996, the City of Manila filed a
person of the defendant is not essential as long as the court complaint against the respondents for the
acquires jurisdiction over the res. expropriation of five parcels of land located in
Tondo, Manila and registered in the name of
ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be dismissed for respondent Teresita Yujuico. Two of the parcels of
lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner? land, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 261331 and TCT No. 261332, were previously
RULING: mortgaged to Citytrust Banking Corporation, the
petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, under a First
No. The Court ruled that validly try and decide the case. In Real Estate Mortgage Contract. On June 30, 2000,
a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the the Regional Trial Court in Manila (Manila RTC)
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer rendered its judgment declaring the five parcels of
jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires land expropriated for public use. The judgment
jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is became final and executory on January 28, 2001 and
acquired either (1) by the seizure of the property under was entered in the book of entries of judgment on
legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of March 23, 2001. The petitioner subsequently filed a
the law; or (2) as a result of the institution of legal Motion to Intervene in Execution with Partial
proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized Opposition to Defendant’s Request to Release, but
and made effective. the RTC denied the motion for having been “filed
out of time.” Hence, the petitioner decided to
extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage constituted
In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted
on the two parcels of land subject of the
by respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested the trial court
respondents’ loan. After holding the public auction,
with jurisdiction over the res. A judicial foreclosure
the sheriff awarded the two lots to the petitioner as
proceeding is an action quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction
the highest bidder at ₱10, 000, 000.00. Claiming a
over the person of petitioner is not required, it being
sufficient that the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over deficiency amounting to P18, 522155.42, the
petitioner sued the respondents to recover such
the subject matter.
deficiency in the Makati RTC (Civil Case No. 03-
450). The respondents moved to dismiss the
NOTES:
complaint on several grounds, namely: that the suit
was barred by res judicata; that the complaint
An action in personam is an action against a
stated no cause of action; and that the plaintiffs
person on the basis of his personal liability.
claim had been waived, abandoned, or
An action in rem is an action against the thing extinguished. In the reply, respondents objected
itself instead of against the person. and alleged that the venue is improper.
An action quasi in rem is one wherein an
individual is named as defendant and the Issues: Whether or not improper venue as a ground for
purpose of the proceeding is to subject his objection maybe raised at anytime.
interest therein to the obligation or lien
burdening the property. Held: No. We underscore that in civil proceedings,
venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon waived by the defendant if not seasonably raised
the defendant not for the purpose of vesting either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.
the court with jurisdiction but merely for Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court thus
satisfying the due process requirements. expressly stipulates that defenses and objections
A resident defendant who does not not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the
voluntarily appear in court, such as petitioner answer are deemed waived. As it relates to the
in this case, must be personally served with place of trial, indeed, venue is meant to provide
summons as provided under Sec. 6, Rule 14 of convenience to the parties, rather than to restrict
the Rules of Court. If she cannot be personally their access to the courts. In other words, unless the
served with summons within a reasonable defendant seasonably objects, any action may be
time, substituted service may be effected (1) tried by a court despite its being the improper
by leaving copies of the summons at the venue.
defendant’s residence with some person of No. It is basic that the venue of an action depends
suitable age and discretion then residing on whether it is a real or a personal action. The
therein, or (2) by leaving the copies at determinants of whether an action is of a real or a
defendant’s office or regular place of business personal nature have been fixed by the Rules of
Court and relevant jurisprudence. According to decision directing respondent to pay petitioner a bigger
Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action sum than that which has been awarded.
is one that affects title to or possession of real
property, or an interest therein. Thus, an action for Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied.
partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of
mortgage on, real property is a real action. The real
action is to be commenced and tried in the proper ISSUE/S:
court having jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing petitioner's
situated, which explains why the action is also recourse under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the
referred to as a local action. In contrast, the Rules of propriety of the MTCC Decision in the subject small claims
Court declares all other actions as personal actions. case.
Such actions may include those brought for the
recovery of personal property, or for the
enforcement of some contract or recovery of HELD:
damages for its breach, or for the recovery of
damages for the commission of an injury to the Yes.
person or property. The venue of a personal action
is the place where the plaintiff or any of the Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant states that:
or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the
case of a non-resident defendant where he may be SEC. 23. Decision. — After the hearing, the court shall
found, at the election of the plaintiff, for which render its decision on the same day, based on the facts
reason the action is considered a transitory one. established by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision
Based on the distinctions between real and personal shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the
actions, an action to recover the deficiency after the court docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith
extrajudicial foreclosure of the real property served on the parties.
mortgage is a personal action, for it does not affect
title to or possession of real property, or any The decision shall be final and unappealable.
interest therein.
Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision
(Note: deficiency in judgment – is a personal action) under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not
allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately
move for its execution.25 Nevertheless, the proscription on
CaseDig: A.L. Ang Network vs. Mondejar appeals in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings
G.R. No. 200804; January 22, 2014 where appeal is not an available remedy,26 does not
Posted by Stephanie Tuquib on 25 July 2018 preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This general
rule has been enunciated in the case of Okada v. Security
FACTS: Pacific Assurance Corporation,27 wherein it was held that:
Petitioner filed a complaint5 for sum of money under the
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases6 before the In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that
MTCC, seeking to collect from respondent the amount of "the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available
₱23,111.71 which represented her unpaid water bills for the where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and
period June 1, 2002 to September 30, 2005. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." In Jaca v.
Davao Lumber Co., the Court ruled:
Due to respondent's failure, petitioner disconnected
respondent's water line for not paying the adjusted water x x x Although Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
charges since March 2003 up to August 2005.11 provides that the special civil action of certiorari may only
be invoked when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy
The MTCC rendered a Decision in favor of respondent, and adequate remedy in the course of law," this rule is not
holding that she should be considered to have fully paid without exception. The availability of the ordinary course of
petitioner. appeal does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent a
party from making use of the extraordinary remedy of
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under certiorari where appeal is not an adequate remedy or
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the RTC, ascribing equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient. It is the
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTCC in inadequacy – not the mere absence – of all other legal
finding that it (petitioner) failed to establish with certainty remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the
respondent's obligation, and in not ordering the latter to writ that usually determines the propriety of certiorari.
pay the full amount sought to be collected.
This ruling was reiterated in Conti v. Court of Appeals:
The RTC issued a Decision21 dismissing the petition for
certiorari, finding that the said petition was only filed to Truly, an essential requisite for the availability of the
circumvent the non-appealable nature of small claims cases extraordinary remedies under the Rules is an absence of an
as provided under Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure on appeal nor any "plain, speedy and adequate remedy" in the
Small Claims Cases. To this end, the RTC ruled that it ordinary course of law, one which has been so defined as a
cannot supplant the decision of the MTCC with another "remedy which (would) equally (be) beneficial, speedy and
sufficient not merely a remedy which at some time in the Test of 4 Questions in determining in permissive or
future will bring about a revival of the judgment x x x compulsory counter claim:
complained of in the certiorari proceeding, but a remedy
which will promptly relieve the petitioner from the 1. Have the same factual issues?
injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior 2. Would a final judgement in a main case res judicata
court or tribunal" concerned. x x x (Emphasis supplied) to the counterclaim if the counterclaim file
separately
In this relation, it may not be amiss to placate the RTC's 3. Logical connection
apprehension that respondent's recourse before it (was only 4. Evidence in the main action disprove the claim in
filed to circumvent the non-appealable nature of [small the counter claim
claims cases], because it asks [the court] to supplant the
decision of the lower [c]ourt with another decision directing Negative Pregnant – is a denial pregnant with admission
the private respondent to pay the petitioner a bigger sum
than what has been awarded."28 Verily, a petition for
certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action29 designed
to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of judgment.
Owing to its nature, it is therefore incumbent upon
petitioner to establish that jurisdictional errors tainted the
MTCC Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant or
dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether or
not the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by capriciously,
whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is
material to the controversy.30
ALBA vs MALAPAHO