C. in The Matter of The Heirship of The Late Hermogenes Rodriguez

SIOS-E, AIRESHYA AZREEN G.
CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1
TOPIC: Indispensable Parties
In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez,
Antonio Rodriguez, Macario J. Rodriguez, Delfin Rodriguez, and Consuelo M. Rodriguez
and Settlement of their Estates,
G.R. No. 182645 December 15, 2010
RENE B. PASCUAL, Petitioner, vs. JAIME M. ROBLES, Respondent.
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
A petition for Declaration of Heirship and Appointment of Administrator and Settlement of

the Estates of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez and Antonio Rodriguez was filed before the RTC by
Henry F. Rodriguez, Certeza F. Rodriguez, and Rosalina R. Pellosi. They sought that they be declared
the sole and surviving heirs of the late Antonio Rodriguez and Hermogenes Rodriguez.
Nobody opposed on the initial hearing of the petition hence, the RTC rendered a Partial Judgment
declaring Henry, Certeza and Rosalina as heirs in the direct descending line of the late Antonio,
Macario and Delfin and appointing Henry as regular administrator of the estate of the decedents
Delfin, Macario and Antonio, and as special administrator to the estate of Hermogenes.
Jamie Robles opposed and prayed that he be appointed regular administrator to the estates of
Antonio and Hermogenes and be allowed to sell a certain portion of land included in the estate of
Hermogenes After hearing on Jamie Robles' application for appointment as regular administrator,
the RTC issued an Order declaring him to be an heir and next of kin of decedent Hermogenes and
thus qualified to be the administrator. Accordingly, the said order appointed Jaime Robles as regular
administrator of the entire estate of Hermogenes and allowed him to sell the property.
The RTC issued an Amended Decision and further decreed that Henry, Certeza and Rosalina are the
heirs of Hermogenes. The RTC also re-affirmed its earlier verdict dismissing the oppositions of Jaime
Robles, Victoria Rodriguez, Bienvenido Rodriguez, and Florencia Rodriguez for their failure to
substantiate their respective claims of heirship to the late Hermogenes.
Robles then appealed the Decision of the RTC by filing a Notice of Appeal, but was denied by the
trial court for Robles' failure to file a record on appeal.
Robles filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court but this Court referred the petition to
the CA for consideration and adjudication on the merits. The CA rendered judgment annulling the
Amended Decision of the RTC. A motion for Reconsideration was then filed by Robles before this
Court.
The basic contention of Robles in the instant Motion is that he is a party-in-interest who stands to be
adversely affected or injured or benefited by the judgment in the instant case. He also argues that
the failure of service upon him of a copy of the instant petition as well as petitioner's memorandum,
and the fact that he was not required or given the opportunity to file his comment or answer to the
SIOS-E, AIRESHYA AZREEN G. CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1
said petition nor served with any order, resolution or any other process issued by this Court in the
instant petition, is a clear denial of his right to due process.
In his Comment and Opposition, petitioner contends that Robles has no legal standing to participate
in the instant petition. Petitioner argues that in an original action for certiorari, the parties are the
aggrieved party against the lower court and the prevailing party. Petitioner claims, however, that
Robles was never impleaded, because he was not the prevailing party in the assailed Decision of the
CA as well as the questioned Order of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not Robles is an indispensable party.
RULING:
Yes, Robles is an indispensable party.
An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an

action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable
parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with
jurisdiction, which is "the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case." Thus,
without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot
attain real finality. 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.
In the case at bar, Robles is an indispensable party. He stands to be injured or benefited by the
outcome of the petition. He has an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily
affect his rights, such that the courts cannot proceed without his presence.
Thus, a mistake is committed in failing to implead Robles as respondent as he is an indispensable

party in the case.

C. in The Matter of The Heirship of The Late Hermogenes Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C. in The Matter of The Heirship of The Late Hermogenes Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

C. in The Matter of The Heirship of The Late Hermogenes Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SIOS-E, AIRESHYA AZREEN G.

CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1

TOPIC: Indispensable Parties

G.R. No. 182645 December 15, 2010

RENE B. PASCUAL, Petitioner, vs. JAIME M. ROBLES, Respondent.

A petition for Declaration of Heirship and Appointment of Administrator and Settlement of

ISSUE: Whether or not Robles is an indispensable party.

Yes, Robles is an indispensable party.

An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an

Thus, a mistake is committed in failing to implead Robles as respondent as he is an indispensable

You might also like