RULE 3 Considering that capacity to be sued is a correlative of the

PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS capacity to sue, to the same extent, a decedent does not
have the capacity to be sued and may not be named a
Section 1. Who may be parties party defendant in a court action.

Hence, there can be no doubt that a deceased person or

GAFFNEY v. BUTLER, G.R. No. 219408
his estate may not be impleaded as defendant in a civil
Campaner, Faith Angeli M.
action as they lack legal personality.
FACTS:
Thus, when Anthony died, his legal personality ceased and
 Donald Gaffney filed a complaint against Gina
he could no longer be impleaded as respondent in the
Butler for sum of money.
present ordinary civil suit for collection.
 Donald alleged that sometime in 2006-2007, Gina
and her husband, Anthony, invited Donald to
Failure to state a cause of action
invest in ActiveFun Corporation.
As such, the complaint against him should be dismissed
 Anthony died in December 2009.
on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim states
 When the proposed investment did not
no cause of action or for failure to state a cause of action
materialize, Donald demanded the return of his
pursuant to Section 1(g), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court,
investments from Gina.
because a complaint cannot possibly state a cause of
 Because no full relief can be had against the
action against one who cannot be a party to a civil action.
Estate/heirs of Anthony Richard Butler under the
original Complaint, Donald filed a Motion for
Lack of jurisdiction
Leave to Admit Amended Complaint for the
The Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over
purpose of impleading the estate or the heirs of
the person or estate of Anthony. Summons is a writ by
the late Anthony Richard Butler [as additional
which the defendant is notified of the action brought
party-defendant] allegedly represented by Gina
against him and service thereof is the means by which the
as his surviving spouse.
court acquires jurisdiction over his person. In the present
 Gina opposed the motion primarily on the
case, no valid service of summons upon the deceased
ground that "only natural or juridical persons may
Anthony was or could have been made, precisely because
be parties in an ordinary civil action."
he was already dead even before the complaint against
him and his wife was filed in court. In several occasions,
ISSUE: The estate or heirs of Anthony, represented by his
the Court has held that the trial court fails to acquire
surviving spouse Gina, could be named as additional
jurisdiction over a defendant who was already dead at the
defendant in the present case.
time the complaint was filed against him.
RULING: NO.
Conclusion
A deceased person does not have the capacity to be sued
In sum, impleading the deceased Anthony or his estate in
and may not be made a defendant in a case.
the present petition was improper. The action against him
must be dismissed and the same may just be filed as a
Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court
claim against his estate in a proper proceeding.
"Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by
law may be parties in a civil action."
Sections 2. Parties in interest
Applying this legal provision, the Court, in Ventura v.
Militante, declared that neither a deceased person nor his CONSUMIDO vs ROS, G.R. No. 166875
estate has capacity to be sued. Concepcion, Elaizza

Neither a dead person nor his estate may be a party FACTS:

plaintiff in a court action. A deceased person does not Spouses Saura filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
have such legal entity as is necessary to bring action so against Digna Consumido. In their complaint, they alleged
much so that a motion to substitute cannot lie and should that, That sometime in 1995, they entered into two lease
be denied by the court. contracts with Digna Consumido, wherein they leased to
Digna 2 units (Unit 982 and Unit 980); that Digna

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 1

undertook to pay rentals per month (PhP 6,400 The records show that Digna Consumido did not enter
and PhP 6,000, respectively); and that Digna started into the lease agreement with Spouses Saura. Other than
defaulting on the rental payments (last quarter of 1995, their bare allegations, the Spouses failed to present
and August 1997), and despite repeated demands, sufficient evidence showing that they are the landlords of
Digna failed to pay the accrued rentals and to vacate the the leased premises or its successors-in-interest or are
premises. authorized to institute the ejectment suit in the name of
the real party in interest. That Spouses Saura were parties
To this, Digna Consumido answered: That she entered in to the lease agreement is not supported by the evidence
the said lease contracts not with the Spouses Saura but on record. The Spouses were able to establish only as far
with the late Ramon Saura, Sr., the father of Ramon Saura, as accepting the rental payments from Digna. However,
Jr. (husband); that Ramon Sr. organized Villa Governor this fact alone cannot vest in them the right of a landlord
Forbes Corporation (VGFC), the administrator of the but of a mere administrator or representative of the late
leased premises.; and that until June 1999, she religiously Ramon Saura, Sr. and/or VGFC.
paid the rentals to the Spouses Saura, who (merely) had
assumed the administration of the leased premises after Thus, as pointed out by the MeTC, Spouses Saura cannot
the death of Ramon, Sr., not knowing that as early as April institute the ejectment suit in their personal capacities.
18, 1995, Sandalwood Real Estate Development (SRED) They must present their authority to prosecute the
had already bought the leased premises from VGFC. ejectment suit in the name of the real party in interest,
which is now Sandalwood Real Estate Corp, being the
The MeTC rendered a decision DISMISSING the ejectment present owner. This the Spouses failed to do.
suit, ruling that VGFC was the lessor and
Spouses Saura merely acted as administrators and/or
representatives of VGFC upon the execution of the leased Sections 5 and 6.
agreements; that the Spouses Saura are not the real
parties-in-interest. CENTRAL BANK vs BANCO FILIPINO, G.R. No.
173399
ISSUE: Whether or not Spouses Saura are real parties-in- Macacua, Alvia Aisa B.
interest and are consequently entitled to file the FACTS:
complaint for unlawful detainer Central Bank ordered the closure of Banco Filipino. Three
cases were filed by Banco Filipino against the Monetary
RULING: One who has no right or interest to protect Board of the Central Bank. These cases were consolidated.
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party- Consequently, the Supreme Court nullified the order for
plaintiff in action for it is jurisprudentially ordained that the closure of Banco Filipino.
every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party in interest. A real party in interest is one During the pendency of the cases, RA 7653 otherwise
who has a legal right. Since a contract may be violated known as The New Central Bank Act of 1993 took effect.
only by the parties thereto as against each other, in an Under the new law, the Central Bank was abolished and
action upon that contract, the real parties-in-interest, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas was created.
either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to the After the lapse of more than 10 years, Banco Filipino filed
said contract. a second amended/supplemental complaint which
sought to include Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral
In an action for unlawful detainer, the real parties-in- ng Pilipinas as additional defendants.
interest are the landlord, the vendor, the vendee, and any
other person against whom the lawful possession of the However, Central Bank Board of Liquidators opposed
land is unlawfully withheld after the expiration of the right since it violates the rule on Joinder of parties. It alleged
to hold possession by virtue of a contract. This case is for that the second supplemental complaint raised new and
unlawful detainer. There was however no written lease independent causes of action against a new party (BSP)
agreement thus there is no need for the court to which was not an original party.
determine who are the parties to the contract. And as was
rightly found by the trial court, it was Forbes Corp which ISSUE: Whether the second supplemental complaint
was the lessor or the landlord being the registered owner. violates the rule on joinder of parties

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 2

RULING: YES. Documents and Damages before RTC on the ground of
The second supplemental complaint violates the rule on the alleged fraudulent act committed by Andrea and
joinder of parties. Macaria. After the SIBLINGS rested their case, they moved
for the amendment of the complaint to implead
The joinder of causes of action is indeed allowed under
additional party and to conform to the evidence
Section 5, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Court; but if there
presented. They averred that the resolution of the case
are multiple parties, the joinder is made subject to the
would affect the interest of PEDRO as donee; hence, he is
rules on joinder of parties under Section 6, Rule 3.
an indispensable party.
Specifically, before causes of action and parties can be
The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, as the
joined in a complaint involving multiple parties
amendment of the complaint would result in the
(1) the right to relief must arise out of the same introduction of a different cause of action prejudicial to
transaction or series of transactions and the TITAS. The court further held that the amendment of
the complaint would unduly delay the resolution of the
(2) there must be a question of law or fact common to all case.
the parties.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pedro (donee) is an indispensable
In the instant case, Banco Filipino is seeking to join the party
BSP and its MB as parties to the complaint. However, they
have different legal personalities from those of the RULING: YES.
defunct CB and its MB: firstly, because the CB was
abolished by R.A. 7653, and the BSP created in its stead; Joinder of indispensable parties
and secondly, because the members of each MB are  Joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory.
natural persons.  A condition sine qua non to the exercise of
judicial power.
These factors make the BSP and its MB different from the
 The absence of an indispensable party renders
CB and its MB. Furthermore, neither of the two
all subsequent actions of the court null and void
requirements for the joinder of causes of action and
for want of authority to act, not only as to the
parties was met.
absent parties but even as to those present.
The only common factor in all these allegations is Banco  Without the presence of indispensable parties to
Filipino bank itself as the alleged aggrieved party. Since the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain
the BSP and its MB cannot be joined as parties, then finality.
neither can the causes of action against them be joined.  One who is not a party to a case is not bound by
any decision of the court; otherwise, he will be
deprived of his right to due process.
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of Indispensable  The case is generally remanded to the court of
Parties origin for further proceedings.
 The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a
LAGUNILLA vs VELASCO, G.R. No. 169276 ground for the dismissal of an action.
Picot, Praisah Marjorey F.  The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed
to be indispensable.
FACTS:  Parties may be added by order of the court on
Fr. Patricio, Magdalena, Venancio, Macaria (all surnamed motion of the party or on its own initiative at
Monis) and Andrea Monis Velasco are siblings. Venancio any stage of the action and/or at such times as
had two children (herein petitioners): Dionisia Monis are just.
Lagunilla and Rafael Monis. Fr. Patricio and Magdalena  If the plaintiff refuses to implead an
acquired several properties in Quezon City. The Q.C. indispensable party despite the order of the
property was co-owned by Patricio and Magdalena with court, then the court may dismiss the complaint
Spouses Andrea Monis-Velasco and Pedro Velasco. After for the plaintiffs failure to comply with a lawful
death of Patricio and Magdalena, Andrea and Macaria court order.
executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement with Donation  In light of the foregoing, a remand of the case
and donated it to Andrea’s Son: Pedro Monis Velasco Jr. to the trial court is imperative.
Dionisia and Rafael instituted an action for Annulment of

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 3

In the case at bar, at the time of the filing of the without whom no final determination can be had of
complaint, the TITLE to the Quezon City property was an action.
already REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF PEDRO. His
interest in the controversy and in the subject matter is A party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in the
not separable from the interest of the other parties. controversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from
His legal presence as a party to the proceedings is, the interest of the other parties, and will not necessarily
therefore, an absolute necessity. be prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice
to the parties. In this light, the ruling of the appellate court
is apropos:
MIRANDA vs BESA, G.R. No. 146513
Malicay Jr., Victor O. Clearly, this case is one of ejectment and Besa is ejecting
Miranda from the portion of the property being unlawfully
FACTS: withheld by her. Obviously, the failure to implead her
Macaria Capuno was the owner of a property and she brother and sister did not bar the lower court from making
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Spouses a final adjudication against her considering that her
Miranda and Feliza Garcia over a portion of the property. brother and sister are also occupying another portion of
Capuno filed an application for the registration of the two the disputed land.
lots under her name, the spouses Miranda did not file any
opposition to the application.
MACAWADIB vs PNP DIRECTORATE, G.R. No.
The Court granted the application declaring the applicant 186610
Capuno to be the absolute owner, Capuno then executed Sosoban, Sarah Melisse S.
a deed of absolute sale in favor of Atty. Tomas Besa.
FACTS:
Capuno then filed a complaint with the court against Sps. Dimapinto Macawadib was police officer with the rank of
Besa for the annulment of the deed of absolute sale, Police Senior Superintendent. Subsequently, pursuant to
however the complaint was dismissed, and was appealed the provisions of Section 39 of Republic Act No. 6975, the
to the IAC. Chief of Directorial Staff of the PNP issued General Order
No. 1168, enumerating the names of commission officers
Meanwhile, Atty Besa sold the lots in favor of Circle Drugs who were subject to compulsory retirement by virtue of
Corporation. Besa then subdivided the property, she then their attainment of the compulsory retirement age of 56.
discovered that the house of Lucia Miranda the daughter
of the Spouses Miranda occupied the portion of said lot. Among the names included in the said Order was that of
Macawadib, as the files of the PNP Records Management
Besa, then filed a complaint of unlawful detainer against Division indicate that he was born on January 11, 1946.
Lucia Miranda, in which the court ruled in favor of Besa. Macawadib then filed an application for late registration
of birth with the Municipal Civil Registrar’s Office. In the
Whereby, Lucia Miranda, her agents, successors-in- said application, Macawadib swore under oath that he
interest and members of her family or any person(s) was born on January 11, 1956. The application was
allowed by her access to the property are directed to turn subsequently approved.
over possession of the property to respondent and to
remove any improvements thereof. Macawadib now filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Marawi City, Branch 8, a Petition for Correction of Entry
Lucia Miranda contended that the complaint was in the Public Service Records Regarding the Birth Date.
defective as it failed to implead her husband and siblings, The Regional Trial Court of Marawi City then rendered a
who are allegedly indispensable parties, is untenable. Decision in favor of Macawadib. It issued an Entry of Final
Judgment indicating therein that its Decision has become
ISSUE: WON her husband is an indispensable party? final and executory.

RULING: No. The PNP Directorate now filed a Petition for Annulment of
Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Judgment with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Procedure, indispensable parties are parties in interest Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 4

with the Court of Appeals, seeking to nullify the above- parties but even to those present. The purpose of the rule
mentioned Decision of the RTC on the ground that the for the compulsory joinder of parties is a complete
trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the PNP, “an determination of all issues not only between the parties
unimpleaded indispensable party”. themselves, but also as regards other persons who may
be affected by the judgment. A decision valid on its face
ISSUE #1: Whether or not the PNP Directorate is an cannot attain real finality where there is want of
indispensable party, without whom no final determination indispensable parties.
of the case can be had
Citing the case of Go vs Distinction Properties
RULING: YES. Development and Construction, Inc., the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court first defined what an indispensable further said that, the general rule with reference to the
party is, “An indispensable part is one who has such an making of parties in a civil action requires the joinder of
interest in the controversy or subject that a final all indispensable parties under any and all conditions,
adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without their presence being a sine qua non of the exercise of
injuring or affecting that interest.” judicial power. For this reason, our Supreme Court has
held that when it appears of record that there are other
Applying the definition in the case at bar, there is a persons interested in the subject matter of the litigation,
necessity to implead the PNP, National Police Commission who are not made parties to the action, it is the duty of
(NAPOLCOM) and Civil Service Commission (CSC) the court to suspend the trial until such parties are made
because they stand to be adversely affected by either plaintiffs or defendants. Where the petition failed
Macawadib’s petition which involves substantial and to join as party defendant the persons interested in
controversial alterations in Macawadib’s service record. sustaining the proceeding in the court, the same should
Moreover, it is the integrity and correctness of the public be dismissed. When an indispensable party is not before
records in the custody of the PNP, NAPOLCOM, and CSC the court, the action should be dismissed.
which are involved and which would be affected by any
decision rendered in the petition for correction filed by
Macawadib. Furthermore, if Macawadib’s service is Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
extended by ten years, the government, through the PNP,
shall be burdened by the additional salary and benefits
CABUTIHAN vs LANDCENTER, G.R. NO. 146594
that would have to be given to Macawadib during such
Suelto, Paolo F.
extension.

FACTS:
Having established that the PNP Directorate is an
On December 3, 1996, Landcenter engaged with the
indispensable party to the case, it necessarily follows that
services of Cabutihan and her group as a Facilitator in
it should have been impleaded pursuant to Section 7, Rule
recovering a property.
3 of the Rules of Court which provides for the compulsory
joinder of indispensable parties.
To pay or compensate the following persons, Cabutihan,
Forro, Radan Sr., and Anave shall receive 20%, 10%, 4%.
“Section 7. Compulsory Joinder of Indispensable
And 2.5% of the proceeds or gross area respectively.
Parties. – Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined as
Landcenter failed and refused of to act on the
plaintiffs or defendants.”
compensation for the services of Cabutihan and her
companions. An action for specific performance with
ISSUE #2: Whether or not the Decision of the trial court is
damages was filed by Cabutihan against Landcenter.
void because of the failure to implead the PNP Directorate

Landcenter contended that Cabutihan, Forro, Radan Sr.,

RULING: YES.
and Anave were not named as plaintiffs, and only
The Supreme Court explained that it is precisely when an
Cabutihan was named as plaintiff. While Cabutihan avers
indispensable party is not before the court (that) an action
that omission of the name of her companions did not
should be dismissed. The absence of an indispensable
prevent the RTC from proceeding with the action, and that
party renders all subsequent action of the court null and
the Trial Court may add or drop a party or parties at any
void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent
stage of the action.

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 5

 SALUDO, JR. vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, G.R.
The RTC ruled that there was no allegation anywhere in No. 193138
the records that Cabutihan is authorized to represent Ampatuan, Sarip Aila A.
Forro, Radan and Anave, who were real parties-in-interest
with respect to their respective shares of the 36.5 percent FACTS:
claim. Such being the case, the trial court never acquired On June 11, 1998, SAFA Law Office entered into a Contract
jurisdiction over the subject matter of their claims. of Lease with Philippine National Bank (PNB), whereby the
latter agreed to lease 632 square meters of the second
ISSUE: floor of the PNB Financial Center Building in Quezon City
1. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A NON JOINDER? for a period of three years and for a monthly rental fee of
YES. P189,600.00.
2. WHETHER OR NOT A MISJOINDER OR NON
JOINDER OF PARTIES IS A GROUND FOR On August 1, 2001, the Contract of Lease expired.
DISMISSAL OF ACTION? NO. According to PNB, SAFA Law Office continued to occupy
the leased premises until February 2005, but discontinued
RULING: Since there was non-joinder of the necessary paying its monthly rental obligations after December
parties. The Regional Trial Court should have ordered the 2002.
joinder Forro, Radan Sr., Ravan.
On September 1, 2006, Saludo, in his capacity as
Section 11, Rule 3, ROC. Misjoinder and non-joinder of managing partner of SAFA Law Office, filed an amended
parties. — Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties complaint for accounting and/or recomputation of
is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be unpaid rentals and damages against PNB in relation to the
dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any Contract of Lease.
party or on its own initiative at any stage the action and
on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined On October 4, 2006, PNB filed a motion to include an
party may be severed and proceeded with separately. indispensable party as plaintiff, praying that Saludo be
(11a) ordered to amend anew his complaint to include SAFA
Law Office as principal plaintiff. PNB argued that the
After the order of joinder, Noncompliance with the said lessee in the Contract of Lease is not Saludo but SAFA Law
order would have been ground for dismissal of the action. Office, and that Saludo merely signed the Contract of
Although the Complaint prayed for the conveyance of the Lease as the managing partner of the law firm.
whole 36.5 percent claim without impleading the
companions of CABUTIHAN as party-litigants, the RTC Thus, SAFA Law Office must be joined as a plaintiff in the
could have separately proceeded with the case as far as complaint because it is considered an indispensable party
her 20 percent share in the claim was concerned, under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
independent of the other 16.5 percent. This fact means
that Forro, Radan Sr., Ravan are not indispensable parties. On October 23, 2006, Saludo filed his motion to dismiss
At best, they are mere necessary parties who ought to be counterclaims, mainly arguing that SAFA Law Office is
impleaded for a complete determination or settlement of neither a legal entity nor party litigant. As it is only a
the claim subject of the action. relationship or association of lawyers in the practice of law
and a single proprietorship which may only be sued
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent through its owner or proprietor, no valid counterclaims
the court from proceeding with the action, and the may be asserted against it.
judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to
the rights of such party. ISSUE #1: Whether or not SAFA Law Office is a real party
in interest. [YES]
Therefore, nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties is not a
ground for dismissal of action. RULING: SAFA Law Office is the real party-in-interest in
the case filed by Saludo against PNB.

Rule 3, Section 2 of the Rules of Court defines a real

party-in-interest.

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 6

 any stage of the action and on such terms as are
Section 2. Parties in Interest. — A real party in just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be
interest is the party who stands to be benefited or severed and proceeded with separately.
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise The Court has also held in several cases that the court has full
authorized by law or these Rules, every action powers, apart from that power and authority which are
must be prosecuted or defended in the inherent, to amend processes, pleadings, proceedings, and
name of the real party in interest. decisions by substituting as party-plaintiff the real party-in-
interest.
SAFA Law Office is the party that would be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit before the RTC. In this case: SAFA Law Office will then replace Saludo as the
Particularly: real party-in-interest.

 It is the party interested in the accounting and/or ISSUE #3: Whether or not there is a valid class suit. [NO]
recomputation of unpaid rentals and damages in
relation to the contract of lease. RULING:
 It is also the party that would be liable for payment to Rule 3, Section 12 of the Rules of Court provides:
PNB of overdue rentals, if that claim would be proven.
Section 12. Class suit. — When the subject
This is because it is the one that entered into the contract matter of the controversy is one of common or
of lease with PNB. As an entity possessed of a juridical general interest to many persons so numerous
personality, it has concomitant rights and obligations with that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a
respect to the transactions it enters into. number of them which the court finds to be
sufficiently numerous and representative as to
Section 2. Parties in Interest. — A real party in fully protect the interests of all concerned may
interest is the party who stands to be benefited or sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party interest shall have the right to intervene to
entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise protect his individual interest.
authorized by law or these Rules, every action
must be prosecuted or defended in the Conditions for a valid class suit
name of the real party in interest. 1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of common
or general interest to many persons;
In this case: As the one primarily affected by the outcome 2. The parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to
of the suit, SAFA Law Office should have filed the join all as parties.
complaint with the RTC and should be made to respond
to any counterclaims that may be brought in the course In this case: While it can be said that the suit being filed is
of the proceeding. one of common or general interest to the partners of SAFA
Law Firm, it’s lacks the second condition. While there were
ISSUE #2: Whether or not the SAFA Law Office may be numerous partners in the firm, they can still all be joined.
included as an indispensable party in the case. [YES]

RULING: Sections 12. Class Suit

The complaint filed by Saludo should be amended to include
SAFA Law Office as plaintiff. BORLASA vs POLISTICO, G.R. No. L-22909
Chew, Mary Grace E.
Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides:
FACTS:
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of In this case, a group of people decided to form an
parties. — Neither misjoinder or non-joinder of association called “Turuhan Polistico”. We have here
parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties Vicente Polistico who is the President-Treasurer of the
may be dropped or added by order of the court association and who would then collect weekly
on motion of any party or on its own initiative at contributions from its members. These contributions

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 7

would be used to conduct their lottery weekly. It was
alleged that the sums of money were being paid with few 2. The parties are so numerous that it is
irregularities. Thus, this prompted Victoriano Borlasa and impracticable to join all as parties.
other members to file an action for the purpose of
securing the dissolution of a voluntary association and to In this case: It would be impossible to require all
compel Vicente Polistico and others to account for and of the members of the association to be joined
surrender the money and property of the association in as parties as it would be tantamount to a denial
order that its affairs may be liquidated and its assets of justice.
applied according to law. However, Vicente Polistico and
other raised the question of lack of parties and set out a In class suit, then, representation of a class interest which
list of some hundreds of persons whom they alleged will be affected by the judgment is indispensable; but it is
should be brought in as parties. not indispensable to make each member of the class an
actual party.
ISSUE: Is the suit filed by some members in behalf of
some other members proper?
MIAA vs RIVERA VILLAGE, G.R. No. 143870
RULING: YES. Chew, Mary Grace E.
The general rule with reference to the making of parties
in a civil action requires the joinder of all necessary parties FACTS:
wherever possible, and the joinder of all indispensable This a petition filed by the Rivera Village Homeowner’s
parties under any and all conditions, the presence of those Association (RIVERA) to refrain the Manila International
latter being a sine qua non of the exercise of judicial Airport Authority (MIAA) from implementing the
power. Conceptual Development Plan. The subject property of
the plan was previously leased by RIVERA. This plan seeks
Exception: CLASS SUIT also known as “Doctrine of to pursue an undertaking in furtherance of the airport-
Virtual Representation” related activities. If this plan will be implemented, the
interest of RIVERA over the subject property will be
Section 12, Rule 3. Class suit. — When the subject matter affected. RIVERA also wants to compel MIAA to sell the
of the controversy is one of common or general interest property in favor of the homeowners association. The
to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to MIAA denied the request, claiming that the subject
join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds property will still be included in its Conceptual
to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully Development Plan intended for airport-related activities.
protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend MIAA aleged that the petition should be dismissed for
for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the lack of personality to sue of the homeowners association.
right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
IST ISSUE: Whether or not Rivera Village is a real party in
In class suit, it is the relaxed application of the general rule interest
which permits the suit to proceed, when the class is
sufficient represented to enable the court to deal properly RULING: YES.
and justly with that interest and with all other interest Section 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is
involved in the suit. the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
Here, there are two conditions of a valid suit: the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of name of the real party in interest.
common or general interest to many persons;
In this case, the petition filed with the trial court
In this case: secure the dissolution of a sufficiently avers that the homeowners association,
voluntary association and compel the Vicente through its President, is suing in a representative
Polistico and other members to account for and capacity as authorized under the Board Resolution
surrender the money and property of the attached to the petition. Although the names of the
association. individual members of the homeowners association who

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 8

are the beneficiaries and real parties-in-interest in the suit appointed representatives would certainly claim denial of
were not indicated in the title of the petition, this defect due process.
can be cured by the simple expedient of requiring the
association to disclose the names of the principals and to
amend the title and averments of the petition accordingly. Sections 16. Death of party; duty of counsel

Essentially, the purpose of the rule that actions should be HINOG vs MELICOR, GR NO. 140954
brought or defended in the name of the real party-in- Bahalla, Carlo L.
interest is to protect against undue and unnecessary
litigation and to ensure that the court will have the benefit FACTS:
of having before it the real adverse parties in the 1. The Balane owned a parcel of land. Sometime in
consideration of a case. This rule, however, is not to be March 1980, they allowed Bertuldo Hinog to use
narrowly and restrictively construed, and its application a portion of the said property for 10 years and to
should be neither dogmatic nor rigid at all times but construct a small house of light materials at a
viewed in consonance with extant realities and nominal annual rent by virtue of the close
practicalities. As correctly noted by the Court of Appeals, relationship.
the dismissal of this case based on the lack of personality 2. After the expiration of the 10-year period, they
to sue of petitioner-association will only result in the filing demanded the return of the property and
of multiple suits by the individual members of the removal of the house but Bertuldo refused and
association. instead claimed ownership over the entire
property.
Hence, Rivera Village is a real party in interest. 3. This prompted the Balane to file a Complaint for
Recovery of Ownership and Possession,
2ND ISSUE: Whether or not the petition is a class suit. Removal of Construction and Damages against
Bertuldo.
RULING: NO, the petition cannot be considered a class 4. During the trial, Bertuldo died. Also, the OLD
suit under Sec. 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the counsel of Bertuldo withdrew and was replaced
requisites therefor not being present in the case, notably by Atty. Petalcorin as the new counsel.
because the petition does not allege the existence and 5. Thereafter, Atty. Petalcorin filed a Motion to
prove the requisites of a class suit Expunge the Complaint from the record and
nullify all court proceedings.
Requisites 6. This was opposed by the Balane. One of their
grounds is that Atty. Petalcorin has no legal
1. the subject matter of the controversy is one of personality to represent a litigant since there was
common or general interest to many persons and no substitution of parties pursuant to Section 16,
2. The parties are so numerous that it is Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
impracticable to bring them all before the court, 7. This was noted by the trial court which
and because it was brought only by one party. subsequently directed Atty. Petalcorin to comply
with the said provisions.
In the case at bar, the homeowners association did not 8. And Atty. Petalcorin complied.
have a common interest. The metes and bound of the
subject property is different from each other. The absence ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Petalcorin has legal
of one of the requisites renders the case not class suit. personality to appear as counsel in this case

In Board of Optometry v. Colet, we held that courts must RULING: NO.

exercise utmost caution before allowing a class suit, which Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that
is the exception to the requirement of joinder of all “whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the
indispensable parties. For while no difficulty may arise if claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty
the decision secured is favorable to the plaintiffs, a of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30)
quandary would result if the decision were otherwise as days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give
those who were deemed impleaded by their self- the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives…”

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 9

 The Nerys contend that they were never made parties to
The purpose behind the rule on substitution is the the case. As such, the decision in Case A does not bind
protection of the right of every party to due process. It is them and it was null and void. The Nerys filed a case with
to ensure that the deceased party would continue to be the trial court to annul the title in the name of the Leysons
properly represented in the suit through the duly and the annulment of the judgment in Case A.
appointed legal representative of his estate. Non-
compliance thereof would render the proceedings and The Leysons allege that the trial court had already
judgment of the trial court infirm because the court acquired jurisdiction over the Nerys when they failed to
acquires no jurisdiction over the persons of the legal notify the trial court of the death of Mercedes during the
representatives or of the heirs on whom the trial and the trial of the case. In fact, they alleged that it is the duty of
judgment would be binding. the counsel to notify the court of the death of a party.

Thus, proper substitution of heirs must be effected for ISSUES:

the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over their persons 1. Whether or not the Nerys should have been
and to remove any future claim by any heir that he impleaded in Case A? Yes.
was not apprised of the litigation against Bertuldo or 2. Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction
that he did not authorize Atty. Petalcorin to represent over the Nerys? No.
him.
RULING:
With regards to the legal personality of a counsel, 1. The Nerys should have been impleaded in Case A.
substitution is necessary before a lawyer of the deceased As the heirs of Mercedes, they were indispensable
party can have legal personality to represent a litigant. parties.

In this case, the list of names and addresses of the heirs Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court (ROC) provides that
was submitted 16 months after the death of Bertuldo and indispensable parties are the parties in interest without
only when the trial court directed Atty. Petalcorin to whom no final determination can be had of an action shall
comply with the provisions of Section 16, Rule 3 of the be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
Rules of Court. Strictly speaking therefore, before said
compliance, Atty. Petalcorin had no standing in the However, under Section 11, Rule 3, ROC, the non-joinder
trial court when he filed his pleadings such as the of parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
Motion to Expunge.
2. The court never acquired jurisdiction over the
However, the court ruled here that the matter has been Nerys.
duly corrected by the Order of the trial court.
At the time Mercedes was impleaded in Case A, she was
already dead. The requirement under Section 16, Rule 3
NERY vs LEYSON, G.R. No. 139306 of the ROC provides that when a party to a pending action
Baruis, Mariel Q. dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be
the duty of his counsel to inform the court within 30 days
FACTS: after such death of the fact thereof.
The Nerys are the heirs of Mercedes del Rio. Mercedes co-
owned a parcel of land in Cebu with her co-heirs from del Section 16, Rule 3 only applies to a pending case. A
Corro. When the Nerys filed for the partition of the share pending case necessarily implies that the court has
of Mercedes, they discovered that there was a notice of lis already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the party
pendens on the title of the land. The Nerys discovered who died or became incapacitated or incompetent. The
that the Leysons had filed a case for the annulment and Trial Court cannot impose such requirement on the
cancellation of the Original Certificate of Title (Case A). In counsel of the defendants. Section 16, Rule 3 finds NO
Case A, the Leysons impleaded Mercedes. At this time, application to this case.
Mercedes was already dead. Case A was later on decided
in favor of the Leysons. Thus, a new Certificate of Title is Thus, for failure to implead the Nerys in Case A, the court
issued in the name of the Leysons. never acquired jurisdiction over them.

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 10

In this case however, the court did not grant the petition Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. —
of the Nerys to annul the judgment of Case A because it Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and
is contrary to the Doctrine of Adhesion. A trial court the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be
cannot annul the judgment of a co-equal court. the duty of his counsel to inform the court within
thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
Hence, even if the Trial court did not acquire jurisdiction thereof, and to give the name and address of his
over the nerys in Case A, the trial court in Civil Case B legal representative or representatives. Failure of
cannot annul this judgment as the Jurisdiction over the counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground
subject matter is vested in a higher court, the court of for disciplinary action.
appeals.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
substituted for the deceased, without requiring
DELA CRUZ vs JOAQUIN, GR No. 165770 the appointment of an executor or administrator
Bentayao, Gerard Wendyll and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for
the minor heirs.
FACTS:
Pedro Joaquin alleged that he had obtained a loan from The court shall forthwith order said legal
Sps Dela Cruz, to secure payment for an obligation, Pedro representative or representatives to appear and
Joaquin supposedly executed a Deed of Sale in favor of be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days
Sps Dela Cruz, for a parcel of land in Nueva Ecija. The from notice.
parties also executed a Kasunduan which Pedro Joaquin
claimed showed the deed of sale to be actually an If no legal representative is named by the counsel
equitable mortgage. Sps Dela Cruz contend that the for the deceased party, or if the one so named
document was merely an accommodation to allow Pedro shall fail to appear within the specified period, the
Joaquin to repurchase the land, which the latter failed to court may order the opposing party, within a
exercise. specified time to procure the appointment of an
executor or administrator for the estate of the
The RTC declared that the parties had entered into a sale deceased and the latter shall immediately appear
with right to repurchase. It further held that Pedro Joaquin for and on behalf of the deceased. The court
had made a valid tender of payment on two separate charges in procuring such appointment, if
occasions to exercise his right of repurchase. Hence, Sps defrayed by the opposing party, may be
Dela Cruz were required to reconvey the property upon recovered as costs.
his payment.

The Court of Appeals sustained the Regional Trial Court The rule on the substitution of parties was crafted to
decision and ordered a substitution by legal protect every party’s right to due process. The estate of
representatives, in view of Sps Dela Cruz’s death. the deceased party will continue to be properly
represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal
Spouses Dela Cruz now assert that the RTC’s Decision was representative. Moreover, no adjudication can be made
invalid for lack of jurisdiction when Pedro Joaquin died against the successor of the deceased if the fundamental
during the pendency of the case and there being no right to a day in court is denied.
substitution by the heirs, the trial court allegedly lacked
jurisdiction over the litigation. A formal substitution by heirs is not necessary when
they themselves voluntarily appear, participate in the case,
ISSUE: Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction over the and present evidence in defense of the deceased. These
case upon Respondent’s death actions negate any claim that the right to due process was
violated.
RULING: No.
When a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not Strictly speaking, the rule on the substitution by heirs is
extinguished, the Rules under Sec.16, Rule 3 require a not a matter of jurisdiction, but of due process. Thus,
substitution of the deceased. when due process is not violated, as when the right of the
representative or heir is recognized and protected,

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 11

noncompliance or belated formal compliance with the While discretionary on the court, it should have allowed
Rules cannot affect the validity of a promulgated decision. De Vera to join in the action and participate in the trial,
Mere failure to substitute for a deceased Pedro Joaquin is considering that the other defendants were already
not a sufficient ground to nullify a trial court’s declared in default. Otherwise, it would violate his right to
decision. The alleging party must prove that there was an procedural due process. He is deemed joined from the
undeniable violation of due process. moment the transfer of interest is perfected.

Case records show that the heirs of Pedro Joaquin

voluntarily appeared and participated in the case after the
Court of Appeals had ordered for legal representatives to
appear and substitute for him. As such, the Motion for
Substitution may be deemed to have been granted; and
the heirs, to have substituted for the deceased
respondent. As there was no violation of due process, the
issue of substitution cannot be upheld as a ground to
nullify the trial court’s Decision.

Sections 19. Transfer of Interest

MEDRANO vs DE VERA, GR No. 165770

Delgado, Michael H.

FACTS:
Flaviana owns a parcel of land. She died intestate and her
sisters Hilaria and Helena inherited the land. The sisters
waived all their hereditary rights over the property in favor
of Francisca. A few heirs of the sisters assailed Francisca’s
right over the property, which prompted the latter to file
an action to quiet title. Some heirs executed a Deed of
Renunciation of Rights over the property in favor of De
Vera. Thus, De Vera wanted to intervene in the case,
considering that the other heirs were already declared in
default.

ISSUE: Should De Vera be allowed by the RTC to

participate in the case? Yes!

RULING: The RTC should have joined him as a party-

defendant. De Vera does not have an independent
interest over the property. He is considered as a
transferee pendente lite and is bound by the judgment
of his transferors on the rule of res judicata.

Rule 3, Section 19 – Transfer of Interest

In case of any transfer of interest, the action may:
1. Be continued by or against the original party,
2. Unless the court upon motion directs the person
to whom the interest is transferred to be
substituted in the action or
3. Joined with the original party.

Civil Procedure Case Digests (2 Sanchez Roman) 12