REM REV DIGESTS

4CDE 2020 – 2021

Topic: Rule 3 – Misjoinder & Non-joinder of Parties

DIVINAGRACIA v. PARILLA
G.R. No. 196750. March 11, 2015

DOCTRINE: The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an
action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be
added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned.
FACTS:
Conrado, Sr. owned a parcel of land in Iloilo City. He had 2 children with his first wife,
namely, Cresencio and Conrado, Jr.; and 7 children with his second wife, namely, Mateo, Sr,
Coronacion, Cecilia, Celestial, Celedonio, Ceruleo and Cebeleo, Sr. He also begot 3 illegitimate
children, namely Eduardo, Rogelio and Ricardo. Both Mateo, Sr. and Cebeleo, Sr. pre-
deceased Conrado, Sr. leaving children, namely: (a) for Mateo, Sr.: Felcon, Landelin, Eusela,
Giovanni, Mateo, Jr., Tito, and Gaylord; and (b) for Cebeleo, Sr.: Cebeleo, Jr. and Neobel.
Santiago, who allegedly bought the shares of majority of the heirs of a property left by Conrado,
Sr. He filed a complaint for partition but did not implead Mateo, Sr.’s children.
RTC found that through the subject document, Santiago became a co-owner of the
subject land and, as such, has the right to demand the partition of the same. However, the RTC
held that Santiago did not validly acquire Mateo, Sr.’s share over the subject land, considering
that Felcon admitted the lack of authority to bind his siblings with regard to Mateo, Sr.’s share
thereon.
CA, on appeal, dismissed Santiago’s complaint for judicial partition. It held the Mateo,
Sr.’s children are indispensable parties to the judicial partition and thus, their non-inclusion as
defendants would necessarily result in its dismissal. CA denied the motion for reconsideration of
the heirs of Santiago, hence, the petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the action for partition proper without impleading Mateo, Sr.’s children.
HELD:
No. The co-heirs are indispensable parties. The aforementioned heirs – whether in their
own capacity or in representation of their direct ascendant – have vested rights over the subject
land and, as such, should be impleaded as indispensable parties in an action for partition
thereof. However, a reading of Santiago’s complaint shows that as regards Mateo, Sr.’s interest,
only Felcon was impleaded, excluding therefrom his siblings and co-representatives. Similarly,
with regard to Cebeleo, Sr.’s interest over the subject land, the complaint impleaded his wife,
Maude, when pursuant to Article 972 of the Civil Code, the proper representatives to his interest
should have been his children, Cebeleo, Jr. and Neobel. Verily, Santiago’s omission of the
aforesaid heirs renders his complaint for partition defective.
An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the
litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party’s interest
in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the

Page 1 of 2
 REM REV DIGESTS
4CDE 2020 – 2021
other parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In
his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is
effective, complete, or equitable. (Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 486 Phil. 366, 379-
380 (2004), citing Bank of the Philippine Islands v. CA, 450 Phil. 532, 541 (2003); further citation
omitted). Thus, the absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the
court null and void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to
those present. (Domingo v. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235, 265 (2004).
With regard to actions for partition, Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court requires that
all persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants, viz.:
SEC. 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. – A person having the
right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting
forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the
real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other
persons interested in the property.
Thus, all the co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable
parties; as such, an action for partition will not lie without the joinder of the said parties.
However, the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint on account of
Santiago’s failure to implead all the indispensable parties in his complaint. In Heirs of Mesina v.
Heirs of Fian, Sr., G.R. No. 201816, April 8, 2013, 695 SCRA 345, the Court definitively
explained that in instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to
implead them and not to dismiss the case, to wit:
The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal
of an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just,
parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal
concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of
the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
order. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. x x x
In view of the foregoing, the correct course of action in the instant case is to order its
remand to the RTC for the inclusion of those indispensable parties who were not impleaded and
for the disposition of the case on the merits.

Page 2 of 2