G.R. No. 182585 Case Digest

G.R. No. 182585, November 27, 2009

Josephine Marmo, Nestor Esguera, Danilo del Pilar and Marisa del Pilar

vs Moises Anacay

Ponente: Brion

Facts:

September 2003, Anacay filed a case for annulment of Sale, recovery of damages against petitioners and the Register of Deeds of Cavite. The complaint states that Anacay and his deceased wife is a co-owner of a parcel of land and house built in Regency Homes, Cavite. They authorized Marmo to sell the property, Marmo then sold it to Danilo del Pilar for 520k payable in monthly instalments from May 2001 to June 2006. Danilo defaulted in his payments from December 2002 onwards.

Anacay later discovered that the title was cancelled and issued in Marmo's name by virtue of a falsified deed of sale. The same title was subsequently transferred to Danilo.

Marmo averred that the children as co-owners of the property, should have been included as plaintiffs because they are indispensable parties. Anacay argued that his children are not indispensable parties because the issue in the case can be resolved without their participation.

RTC Ruling: ruled in favor of Anacay, noted that the motion to include the children was simply filed to delay the proceedings. Petitioners then elevated their case to the CA.

CA Ruling: CA dismissed the petition, affirming the RTC; the children are not indispensable parties.

The parties then were required to submit their memoranda.

Petitioner: submit that the respondent’s children, who succeeded their deceased mother as co-owners of the property, are indispensable parties because a full determination of the case cannot be made without their presence.

The respondent, on the other hand, counters that the respondent’s children are not indispensable parties because the issue involved in the RTC – whether the signatures of the respondent and his wife in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 20, 2001 were falsified - can be resolved without the participation of the respondent’s children. 

Issue: Whether the children were indispensable parties.

Held: NO MERIT.

Section 7, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action and who, for this reason, must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants.

When the controversy involves a property held in common, Article 487 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that “any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.”

We read these cases to collectively mean that where the suit is brought by a co-owner, without repudiating the co-ownership, then the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of the other co-owners and may proceed without impleading the other co-owners. However, where the co-owner repudiates the co-ownership by claiming sole ownership of the property or where the suit is brought against a co-owner, his co-owners are indispensable parties and must be impleaded as party-defendants, as the suit affects the rights and interests of these other co-owners.

In the present case, the respondent, as the plaintiff in the court below, never disputed the existence of a co-ownership nor claimed to be the sole or exclusive owner of the litigated lot.  In fact, he recognized that he is a “bona-fide co-owner” of the questioned property, along with his deceased wife. Moreover and more importantly, the respondent’s claim in his complaint in Civil Case No. 2919-03 is personal to him and his wife, i.e., that his and his wife’s signatures in the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of petitioner Josephine were falsified.

The issue therefore is falsification, an issue which does not require the participation of the respondent’s co-owners at the trial; it can be determined without their presence because they are not parties to the document; their signatures do not appear therein. Their rights and interests as co-owners are adequately protected by their co-owner and father.