PNB VS HEIRS OF

MILITAR
RULE 3, SECTION 7
 HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR

Deogracias Glicerio Tomas Caridad

Undivided Survived by:

share sold to:
• Wenceslao
•Golez • Ladislao
•Sps. Lumagbas
 HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR

Deogracias Glicerio Tomas Caridad

Undivided Survived by:

share sold to:
Sps. Rodolfo and Nilda
• Wenceslao
•Golez • Ladislao
•Sps. Lumagbas

Jalbuna
 SPS. JOHNNY AND NONA LUCERO

• As the new owners of Lot

No. 3017-B, they filed an
Heirs of ejectment case against
Militar
Tranquilina, Azucena,
Freddie and Eduardo, all
Sps
•Mortgaged.
•Defaulted.
surnamed Militar, the actual
Jalbuna •Foreclosed.
•Sold.
occupants therein.

• Heirs of Deogracias filed a

PNB •Sold the lot.
complaint against Jalbuna,
PNB and Sps. Lucero for
Sps Johnny Reconveyance of Title,
and Nona Annulment of Sale,
Lucero
Cancellation of Titles and
Damages.
• Sps Jalbuna • The case was not
invoked: brought by all
• Non-inclusion of indispensable
indispensable parties parties as other heirs
• Lack of cause of of Glicerio, Tomas
action and Caridad have
• Sps Lucero alleged: not been named as
• That the complaint parties therein.
was commenced
without the real party
in interest
 ISSUE

•Whether or not the

case was brought
by all indispensable
parties
 INDISPENSABLE PARTIES

• 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 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.
 TWO ESSENTIAL TESTS OF AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY

• Can relief be afforded the plaintiff without the

presence of the other party?

• Can the case be decided on the merits without

prejudicing the rights of the other party?
 CO-OWNERS

• A co-heir may bring such action without necessarily

joining all the other co-heirs as co-plaintiffs because
the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of
all

• Article 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action for
ejectment.
• Corollary, the instant case, may proceed without the other
heirs, if there are any, because they are mere necessary parties.
Moreover, in a co-ownership, the act of one benefits all the co-
owners, unless the former repudiates the co-ownership. Thus, if
the appellants herein prevail in the case for reconveyance, it
will also redound to the benefit of the other co-owners or co-
heirs.