G.R. No. 166519 Case Digest

G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009

Nieves Plasabas and Marcos Malazarte

vs Court of Appeals, Dominador Lumen and Aurora Aunzo

Ponente: Nachura

Facts:

In 1074, Plasabas and Malazarte filed a complaint for recovery of title to property with damages before CFI Maasin, Leyte. The subject property was a parcel of coconut land declared in the name of Plasabas. They pray for their rights over the land be confirmed and for Lumen and Aunzo to vacate the land.

Aunzo and Lumen interposed that they inherited the land from their common ancestor, Francisco Plasabas. In the course of trial, it was found out that Nieves was not the absolute owner of the land.

Aunzo and Lumen then raised the argument that the case should have been terminated at inception for petitioner's failure to implead indispensable parties (Jose, Victor and Victoria).

CFI dismissed the case. The instant case should have been dismissed without prejudice a long time ago for lack of cause of action as the plaintiffs spouses Marcos Malazarte and Nieves Plasabas Malazarte have no complete legal personality to sue by themselves alone without joining the brothers and sisters of Nieves who are as INDISPENSABLE as the latter in the final determination of the case. Not impleading them, any judgment would have no effectiveness.

Petitioners then elevated the case to the CA. CA affirmed the ruling of the CFI. CA declared that the non-joinder of the indispensable parties would violate the principle of due process, and that Article 487 of the Civil Code could not be applied considering that the complaint was not for ejectment, but for recovery of title or a reivindicatory action.

Held:

With a motion to reconsider, SC grants the petition and remands the case to the CFI for disposition on the merits, citing Article 487 that provides any one of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment.

In any event, the trial and appellate courts committed reversible error when they summarily dismissed the case, after both parties had rested their cases following a protracted trial commencing in 1974, on the sole ground of failure to implead indispensable parties. The rule is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.