FACTS: Plaintiffs and defendants, along with hundreds others, formed an

association, Turuhan Polistico & Co. Vicente Polistico was elected president and
treasurer, and his house was made its principal place of busines. The association
was to exist for 15 years and each member obligated himself to pay to Polistico
before 3pm every Sunday 50 centavos, except on every fifth Sunday when the amount
was Php1, if Polistico elected so, as he always did. The by-laws dictate that a
lottery should be conducted weekly among the members and that the successful member
should be paid the amount collected each week. from which the president-treasurer
was to receive Php200, to be held by him as funds of the society.

Polistico received a total of Php Php74,000, more or less, which he still retains
in his power or has applied to the purchase of real property largely in his own
name and partly in the names of others, also herein defendants and members of the
board of directors of the association.

Victoriano Borlasa and others filed an action against defendants for the
dissolution of the association, and to compel them to account for and surrender the
money and property of the association for its affairs to be liquidated and its
assets applied accordingly.

In an amended answer, defendants questioned the lack of parties and listed hundreds
others whom they alleged should be parties defendant since they were in default of
payment of dues. Plaintiffs were ordered to include all members either as
plaintiffs or defendants, to which order plaintiffs excepted but acquiesced to the
extent of amending the complaint by adding as plaintiffs hundreds other members
desirous of being so.

The trial judge granted demurrer for lack of necessary parties and the cause was
dismissed. Plaintiffs appealed to the Court.

ISSUE: W/n all the members of the association should be brought in either as
plaintiffs or defendants.

HELD: No.

The situation involved is precisely the one contemplated in section 118 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, where one or more may sue for the benefit of all. It is evident
from the showing made in the complaint, and from the proceedings in the court
below, that it would be impossible to make all of the persons in interest parties
to the cases and to require all of the members of the association to be joined as
parties would be tantamount to a denial of justice.

While generally civil action requires the joinder of all necessary partis whenever
possible and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions,
such is not so in a class suit which is an exceptional situation where there are
numerous persons all in the same plight and all together constituting a
constituency whose presence in the litigation is absolutely indispensable to the
administration of justice. The suit is permitted to proceed so long as the class is
sufficiently represented to enable the court to deal properly and justly with that
interest and with all other interest involved in the suit.

In the class suit, then, representation of a class interest which will be affected
by the judgment is indispensable; but it is not indispensable to make each member
of the class an actual party.

It should be noted that while the amendment which included hundreds others as
plaintiffs was unnecessary, it is desirable that the complaint be made to show on
its face that the action is intended to be litigated as a class suit, which could
be done by adding after the names of the plaintiffs the words: "in their own behalf
and in behalf of other members of Turuhan Polistico & Co."