Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 489 views

    Plasabas V Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Dan Christian Dingcong Cagnan
    This case involved a complaint filed by Nieves and Malazarte for recovery of title over a parcel of land. The respondents denied the petitioners' claims of ownership and possession. During trial, it was found that Nieves was not the sole owner of the land based on witness testimony, but that the land was inherited through Nieves' family line. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not need to implead Nieves' co-owning siblings as defendants since Article 487 of the Civil Code allows any co-owner to bring an action for ejectment or recovery that benefits all co-owners. The lower courts erred in dismissing the case instead of allowing the co-owners to be impleaded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Plasabas V Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Dan Christian Dingcong Cagnan
    489 views2 pages
    This case involved a complaint filed by Nieves and Malazarte for recovery of title over a parcel of land. The respondents denied the petitioners' claims of ownership and possession. During trial, it was found that Nieves was not the sole owner of the land based on witness testimony, but that the land was inherited through Nieves' family line. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not need to implead Nieves' co-owning siblings as defendants since Article 487 of the Civil Code allows any co-owner to bring an action for ejectment or recovery that benefits all co-owners. The lower courts erred in dismissing the case instead of allowing the co-owners to be impleaded.

    Original Description:

    Property Law

    Original Title

    Plasabas v Court of Appeals

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a complaint filed by Nieves and Malazarte for recovery of title over a parcel of land. The respondents denied the petitioners' claims of ownership and possession. During trial, it was found that Nieves was not the sole owner of the land based on witness testimony, but that the land was inherited through Nieves' family line. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not need to implead Nieves' co-owning siblings as defendants since Article 487 of the Civil Code allows any co-owner to bring an action for ejectment or recovery that benefits all co-owners. The lower courts erred in dismissing the case instead of allowing the co-owners to be impleaded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    489 views2 pages

    Plasabas V Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Dan Christian Dingcong Cagnan
    This case involved a complaint filed by Nieves and Malazarte for recovery of title over a parcel of land. The respondents denied the petitioners' claims of ownership and possession. During trial, it was found that Nieves was not the sole owner of the land based on witness testimony, but that the land was inherited through Nieves' family line. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not need to implead Nieves' co-owning siblings as defendants since Article 487 of the Civil Code allows any co-owner to bring an action for ejectment or recovery that benefits all co-owners. The lower courts erred in dismissing the case instead of allowing the co-owners to be impleaded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Plasabas v Court of Appeals (2009)

    Facts
    ● Nieves filed a complaint for recovery of title. Subject lot was a parcel of coconut land in
    Canturing, Maasin Southern Leyte.
    ● Subject lot is declared under a tax declaration in the of Nieves.
    ● Nieves (and co petitioner Malazarte) prayed that judgment be rendered confirming their
    rights and legal title to the subject lot and for defendants to vacate plus damages.
    ● Respondents Lumen and Aunzo denied the allegations of ownership and possession of
    the premises and claimed that they inherited the subject land from their common
    ancestor, Francisco Plasabas.
    ● It was found out in the course of the trial that Nieves was not the sole and absolute
    owner of the land based on the testimonies of Nieves’ witnesses:
    Francisco - > son Leoncio -> Jovita Talam (Nieves’ grandmother) -> Antonina Talam (Nieves’
    mother) -> Nieves’ and her siblings Jose, Victor and Victoria

    Issue:
    WON complaint should have been terminated at inception for petitioners' failure to implead
    indispensable parties, the other co-owners

    An indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in the controversy or


    subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without inquiring
    or affecting such interest.

    Ruling of the Supreme Court:


    ● SC GRANTED the petition; REMANDS the case for disposition of merits

    Article 487 of the Civil Code provides:


    Any one of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment.

    ● The above article covers ALL KINDS OF ACTIONS FOR THE RECOVERY OF
    POSSESSION, including accion publiciana and a reivindicatory action.
    ● Suits of this nature is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all however, if the
    judgment is adverse, the same cannot prejudice the rights of the unimpleaded
    co-owners.
    ● IN THIS CASE, petitioners Nieves and Malazarte do not have to implead their co-
    owners as parties. (XPN: when the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who
    claims to be the sole owner)
    ● Petitioners acknowledged during the trial that the property is co-owned by Nieves
    and her siblings, and that petitioners have been authorized by the co-owners to
    pursue the case on the latter's behalf. Thus, the complaint is of the nature that is
    contemplated under ART 487 of the Civil Code.
    ● Trial and appellate courts committed a reversible error when they summarily dismissed
    the case since the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal of
    action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.

    You might also like