Antonio Chua Vs

8/20/2019 Antonio Chua Vs

1/21

ANTONIO CHUA vs. TOPROSG.R. No. 152808 September 30, 2005

FACTS

Total Ofce Products and Services, Inc., lodged acomplaint or annulment o contracts o loan and realestate mortgage against Antonio T. Chua beore RTC

seeing to A!!"# a loan contract allegedl$ e%tended b$Chua to TOPROS in the amount o &'.( million and theaccessor$ R)* covering t+o parcels o land as collateral.

In the contract o loan, TOPROS +asrepresented b$ its president ohn Charles Chang, r.

TOPROS alleged that the purported loan andR)* contracts +ere -ctitious, since it never authoriedan$bod$, not even its president, to enter into saidtransaction.

Petitioner Antonio Chua -led a motion todismiss alleging that ohn Charles Ang, r., the presidento TOPROS, +ho allegedl$ entered into the /uestionedloan and R)* is an indispensable part$ +ho has notbeen properl$ impleaded.

ISSU!

Whether or not John Charles Ang Jr. is anindispensable party in this case.

RU"ING NO.

Section 0, Rule 1 o the Revised Rules o Court provides2

S!C. #. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. $ P%rt&es &' &'terest (&t)o*t ()om 'o +'%-eterm&'%t&o' %' be )%- o/ %' %t&o' s)% be o&'e- e&t)er %s p%&'t&s or -e/e'-%'ts.

T)e prese'e o/ &'-&spe's%be p%rt&es &s'eess%r to vest t)e o*rt (&t) *r&s-&t&o'. T)e%bse'e o/ %' &'-&spe's%be p%rt re'-ers %

s*bse*e't %t*%t&o's o/ t)e o*rt '* %'- vo&-,be%*se o/ t)%t o*rt4s (%'t o/ %*t)or&t to %t,'ot o' %s to t)e %bse't p%rt&es b*t eve' %s tot)ose prese't.

Thus, +henever it appears to the court in the course o aproceeding that an indispensable part$ has not been

3oined, it is the dut$ o the court to stop the trial andorder the inclusion o such part$. A person is not an indispensable part$, ho+ever, i hisinterest in the controvers$ or sub3ect matter is separablerom the interest o the other parties, so that it +ill notnecessaril$ be directl$ or in3uriousl$ a4ected b$ a decree+hich does complete 3ustice bet+een them. Is John Charles Chang, Jr., the president of TOPROS whoallegedly entered into the disputed contracts of loan andreal estate mortgage, an indispensable party in thiscase

5e note that although it is Chang6s signature thatappears on the assailed real estate mortgage contract,his participation is limited to being a representative o

TOPROS, allegedl$ +ithout authorit$. T)e-o*me't()&) o'st&t*tes %s t)e o'tr%t o/ re%est%te mort%e e%r po&'ts to pet&t&o'er %'-TOPROS %s t)e soe p%rt&es6&'6&'terest to t)e%reeme't %s mort%ee %'- mort%or t)ere&',respet&ve. An$ rights or liabilities arising rom the

said contract +ould thereore bind onl$ the petitionerand TOPROS as principal parties. Chang, acting as mererepresentative o TOPROS, ac/uires no rights+hatsoever, nor does he incur an$ liabilities, arising romthe said contract bet+een petitioner and TOPROS.Certainl$, in our vie+, t)e o' &'-&spe's%be p%rt&esto t)e mort%e o'tr%t %re pet&t&o'er %'-TOPROS %o'e.

5e thus hold that ohn Charles Chang, r., is not anindispensable part$ in Civil Case !o. 70017. This is+ithout pre3udice to an$ separate action TOPROS ma$institute against Chang, r., in a proper proceeding.


2/21

7ARC!"INO ARC!"ONA vs. COURT OF APP!A"SG.R. No. 10200 Otober 2, 1#

FACTS

The si% Arcelona siblings +ere co8o+ners o a -shpond

+hich the$ inherited rom their deceased parents.

Petitioners *arcelino, Tomasa and Ruth are no+naturalied Americans residing in Caliornia, ".S.A.

The other three siblings, hereinater collectivel$ reerredto as O%'-%, et al., e%ecuted a contract o lease +ithCipriano Tandoc +ho in turn appointed respondent*oises 9arnacio as caretaer8tenant.

Ater the termination o the lease contract, the lessee:Tandoc; surrendered possession o the leased premisesto the lessors, Olanda$, et al.

Thereater, 9arnacio instituted an action or


3/21


4/21

Section &&, Rule 1 must be ollo+ed2 such non83oinder isnot a ground or dismissal. ence, in a case concerningan action to recover a sum o mone$, +e held that theailure to 3oin the spouse in that case +as not a

3urisdictional deect. The non83oinder o a spouse doesnot +arrant dismissal as it is merel$ a ormalre/uirement +hich ma$ be cured b$ amendment. Conversel$, in the instances that the pro8orma parties

are also indispensable or necessar$ parties, the rulesconcerning indispensable or necessar$ parties, as thecase ma$ be, should be applied. Thus, dismissal is+arranted onl$ i the pro8orma part$ not 3oined in thecomplaint is an indispensable part$.

*ilagros de Euman, being presumed to be a co8o+nero the credits allegedl$ e%tended to the spousesCarandang, seems to be either an indispensable or anecessar$ part$. I she is an indispensable part$,dismissal +ould be proper. I she is merel$ a necessar$part$, dismissal is not +arranted, +hether or not there+as an order or her inclusion in the complaint pursuantto Section K, Rule 1.

I' s*m, &' s*&ts to reover propert&es, % o6o('ers %re re% p%rt&es &' &'terest. o+ever,

pursuant to Article (?0 o the Civil Code and relevant 3urisprudence, an$ one o them ma$ bring an action, an$ind o action, or the recover$ o co8o+ned properties.

Thereore, onl$ one o the co8o+ners, namel$ the co8o+ner +ho -led the suit or the recover$ o the co8o+ned propert$, is an indispensable part$ thereto. Theother co8o+ners are not indispensable parties. The$ arenot even necessar$ parties, or a complete relie can beaccorded in the suit even +ithout their participation,since the suit is presumed to have been -led or thebene-t o all co8o+ners.

5e thereore hold that *ilagros de Euman is not anindispensable part$ in the action or the recover$ o theallegedl$ loaned mone$ to the spouses Carandang. Assuch, she need not have been impleaded in said suit,and dismissal o the suit is not +arranted b$ her notbeing a part$ thereto.

!OT)2In action or e3ectment, all co8o+ners o undividedpropert$ must be 3oined as co8plainti4s.

A tenant must implead all the co8o+ners to establish histenanc$ relation.

In action to recover propert$, an$ one o the co8o+nersma$ bring an action or the recover$ o co8o+nedproperties +ithout the necessit$ o 3oining all the otherco8o+ners as co8plainti4s because the suit is presumedto have been -led or the bene-t o his co8o+ners.


5/21

"!ONIS NA=IGATION vs. CATA"INO =I""A7AT!RG.R. No. 1#1; 7%r) 3, 2010

FACTS

Catalino Gillamater +as hired as Chie )ngineer. 9ourmonths ater his deplo$ment, he su4ered intestinalbleeding. e sought hospitaliation in Eerman$ and +asdiagnosed o cancer. Thereater, he +as repatriated.

Gillamater -led a complaint beore #A 8 !#RC orpa$ment o disabilit$ bene-ts and reimbursement o medical e%penses. #A rendered 3udgment holding that

his illness +as compensable.

!#RC afrmed in toto the decision o #A.

Petitioners -led petition or certiorari alleging that CAerred in dismissing outright their petition on the groundo non 3oinder o indispensable parties. It should benoted that onl$ the then deceased Gillamater +asimpleaded, e%cluding his heirs.

ISSU!

Whether or not non joinder of indispensable parties is a ground for dismissal.

RU"ING

Rule 1, Section 0 o the Rules o Court de-nesindispensable parties as those +ho are parties in interest+ithout +hom there can be no -nal determination o anaction. The$ are those parties +ho possess such aninterest in the controvers$ that a -nal decree +ouldnecessaril$ a4ect their rights, so that the courts cannotproceed +ithout their presence. A part$ is indispensablei his interest in the sub3ect matter o the suit and in therelie sought is ine%tricabl$ intert+ined +ith the otherparties6 interest. "n/uestionabl$, Gillamater6s +ido+ stands as anindispensable part$ to this case.

"nder Rule 1, Section && o the Rules o Court, neithermis3oinder nor non83oinder o parties is a ground or thedismissal o an action, thus2

Sec. &&. *is3oinder and non83oinder o parties. !eithermis3oinder nor non83oinder o parties is ground ordismissal o an action. Parties ma$ be dropped or addedb$ order o the court on motion o an$ part$ or on itso+n initiative at an$ stage o the action and on suchterms as are 3ust. An$ claim against a mis3oined part$ma$ be severed and proceeded +ith separatel$.

T)e proper reme- &s to &mpe%- t)e&'-&spe's%be p%rt %t %' st%e o/ t)e %t&o'. Thecourt, either motu proprio or upon the motion o a part$,ma$ order the inclusion o the indispensable part$ or

give the plainti4 an opportunit$ to amend his complaintin order to include indispensable parties. I the plainti4 ordered to include the indispensable part$ reuses tocompl$ +ith the order o the court, the complaint ma$be dismissed upon motion o the deendant or upon thecourtDs o+n motion. Onl$ upon un3usti-ed ailure orreusal to obe$ the order to include or to amend is theaction dismissed.


6/21

CHRISTIN! CHUA vs. >ORG! TORR!S AN9?!"TRAN

G.R. No. 1500 A**st 30, 2005

FACTS

Christine Chua -led a complaint against repondents. Sheimpleaded her brother onathan as a necessar$ part$.o+ever, there +as no allegation in the complaint o an$damage or in3ur$ sustained b$ onathan.

onathan did not sign an$ veri-cation or certi-cation

against orum shopping.

RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that onathan Chua had not e%ecuted a certi-cate o nonorum shopping. The RTC stressed that Section M, Rule 0o the Rules o Civil Procedure, the rule re/uiring thecerti-cation, maes no distinction +hether the plainti4 re/uired to e%ecute the certi-cation is a principal part$,a nominal part$ or a necessar$ part$. Instead, theprovision re/uires that a plainti4 or principal part$ +ho-les a complaint or initiator$ pleading e%ecute suchcerti-cation. onathan Chua, being a plainti4 in this case,+as obliged to e%ecute or sign such certi-cation. ence,his ailure to do so in violation o the mandator$ rulere/uiring the certi-cation against orum8shoppingconstituted valid cause or the dismissal o the petition.

ISSU!

Whether or not the absence of the signature inthe required veri"cation and certi"cation against forum shopping of a party misjoined as a plainti( is a valid ground for the dismissal of thecomplaint.

RU"ING

A mis3oined part$ plainti4 has no business participatingin the case as a plainti4 in the -rst place, and it +ouldmae little sense to re/uire the mis3oined part$ incompl$ing +ith all the re/uirements e%pected o plainti4s. At the same time, Section &&, Rule 1 o the &KK0 Rules o Civil Procedure states2

Ne&t)er m&so&'-er 'or 'o'6o&'-er o/ p%rt&es &sro*'- /or -&sm&ss% o/ %' %t&o'. Parties ma$ bedropped or added b$ order o the court on motion o an$part$ or on its o+n initiative at an$ stage o the actionand on such terms as are 3ust. An$ claim against amis3oined part$ ma$ be severed and proceeded +ithseparatel$. Clearl$, mis3oinder o parties is not atal to thecomplaint. The rule prohibits dismissal o a suit on theground o non83oinder or mis3oinder o parties. *oreover,

the dropping o mis3oined parties rom the complaintma$ be done motu proprio b$ the court, at an$ stage,+ithout need or a motion to such e4ect rom theadverse part$. Section &&, Rule 1 indicates that themis3oinder o parties, +hile erroneous, ma$ be corrected+ith ease through amendment, +ithout urtherhindrance to the prosecution o the suit.

It should then ollo+ that an$ act or omission committed

b$ a mis3oined part$ plainti4 should not be cause orimpediment to the prosecution o the case, much less orthe dismissal o the suit. Ater all, such part$ should nothave been included in the -rst place, and no efcac$should be accorded to +hatever act or omission o thepart$. Since the mis3oined part$ plainti4 receives norecognition rom the court as either an indispensable ornecessar$ part$8plainti4, it then ollo+s that +hateveraction or inaction the mis3oined part$ ma$ tae on theveri-cation or certi-cation against orum8shopping isinconse/uential. ence, it should not have mattered tothe RTC that onathan Chua had ailed to sign thecerti-cation against orum8shopping, since he +asmis3oined as a plainti4 in the -rst place. The act that

onathan +as mis3oined is clear on the ace o thecomplaint itsel, and the error o the RTC in dismissingthe complaint is not obviated b$ the act that the

adverse part$ ailed to raise this point. Ater all, the RTCcould have motu proprio dropped onathan as a plainti4,or the reasons above8stated +hich should have beenevident to it upon e%amination o the complaint.


7/21

9IONISIA "AGUNI""A vs. AN9R!A =!"ASCOG.R. No. 1;2#; >*'e 1;, 200

FACTS

Rev. 9r. Patricio :Patricio;, *agdalena Catalina:*agdalena;, Genancio, and respondent *acaria, allsurnamed *onis, as +ell as respondent Andrea *onis 8Gelasco :Andrea;, are siblings.

Genancio is the ather o petitioners ionisia *onis#agunilla and Raael *onis.

uring their lietime, Patricio and *agdalena ac/uiredseveral properties +hich included several parcels o landin the province o #a "nion and another one situated inJueon Cit$. The Jueon Cit$ propert$ +as co8o+ned b$Patricio and *agdalena, together +ith Andrea and PedroGelasco.

Ater the death o Patricio and *agdalena , Andrea and*acaria :to the e%clusion o Genancio6s children;e%ecuted a eed o )%tra3udicial Settlement +ithonation involving the Jueon Cit$ propert$, anddonated the same to Andrea6s son, Pedro *onis Gelasco,

r.

Petitioners instituted an action or Annulment o ocuments and amages against respondents Andrea*onis Gelasco and *acaria *onis alleging raud on thepart o the respondents in e%ecuting the document asthe petitioners +ere also surviving heirs.

Ater the$ rested their case, the$ moved or theamendment o the complaint to implead additionalpart$, Pedro as donee, since the resolution o the case+ould a4ect his interest.

RTC denied the motion to amend the complaint andthereb$ dismissed the complaint.

On appeal, CA afrmed RTC decision concluding that thecase instituted b$ the petitioners +as intended to annulthe e%tra83udicial settlement. The /uestion o validit$ o

the settlement is separate and distinct rom the validit$o the donation. ence, Pedro cannot be considered asan indispensable part$.

ISSU!

Whether or not the CA erred in a)rming $!Cdecision in denying the motion to amend thecomplaint to implead an indispensable party and conform to the evidence presented.

RU"ING

Corollar$ to the issue o 3urisdiction, and e/uall$important, is the mandator$ rule on 3oinder o indispensable parties set orth in Section 0, Rule 1 o theRules o Court, to +it2

S)C. 0. Compulsor$ 3oinder o indispensable parties. LParties in interest +ithout +hom no -nal determinationcan be had o an action shall be 3oined either as plainti4s

or deendants.

The general rule +ith reerence to parties to a civilaction re/uires the 3oinder o all necessar$ parties,+here possible, and the 3oinder o all indispensableparties under an$ and all conditions. The evident intento the Rules on the 3oinder o indispensable andnecessar$ parties is the complete determination o allpossible issues, not onl$ bet+een the parties themselvesbut also as regards other persons +ho ma$ be a4ectedb$ the 3udgment. An indispensable part$ is a part$ +ho has an interest inthe controvers$ or sub3ect matter that a -nalad3udication cannot be made, in his absence, +ithoutin3uring or a4ecting that interest, a part$ +ho has notonl$ an interest in the sub3ect matter o the controvers$,

but also has an interest o such nature that a -naldecree cannot be made +ithout a4ecting his interest orleaving the controvers$ in such a condition that its -naldetermination ma$ be +holl$ inconsistent +ith e/uit$and good conscience. It has also been considered thatan indispensable part$ is a person in +hose absencethere cannot be a determination bet+een the partiesalread$ beore the court +hich is e4ective, complete ore/uitable. 9urther, an indispensable part$ is one +homust be included in an action beore it ma$ properl$ goor+ard.

A person is not an indispensable part$, ho+ever, i hisinterest in the controvers$ or sub3ect matter is separablerom the interest o the other parties, so that it +ill notnecessaril$ be directl$ or in3uriousl$ a4ected b$ a decree+hich does complete 3ustice bet+een them. Also, aperson is not an indispensable part$ i his presence+ould merel$ permit complete relie bet+een him andthose alread$ parties to the action, or i he has nointerest in the sub3ect matter o the action. It is not asufcient reason to declare a person to be anindispensable part$ that his presence +ill avoid multiplelitigation.

)ven +ithout having to scrutinie the records, a merereading o the assailed decision readil$ reveals thatPedro is an indispensable part$. At the time o the -lingo the complaint, the title to the Jueon Cit$ propert$+as alread$ registered in the name o Pedro, ater TCT!o. 7'(MM :&K'(0B; in the names o Pedro Gelasco,Andrea, *agdalena and Patricio *onis +as cancelled,pursuant to the e%tra3udicial settlement +ith donatione%ecuted b$ respondents. The central thrust o thecomplaint +as that respondents, b$ themselves, could

not have transerred the Jueon Cit$ propert$ to Pedrobecause petitioners, as heirs o Patricio and *agdalena,also have rights over it. Accordingl$, petitionersspeci-call$ pra$ed that the e%tra3udicial settlement +ithdonation be annulled and the transer certi-cate o titleand ta% declarations :in the name o Pedro; issuedpursuant thereto be canceled.

I such pra$er and thrust +ere to be denied :as held b$the trial and appellate courts;, the problem +ould be lessobvious, as the status /uo +ould be maintained.o+ever, i the$ +ere to be upheld, Pedro6s title to thepropert$ +ould undoubtedl$ be directl$ and in3uriousl$


8/21

a4ected. )ven i +e onl$ resolve the validit$ o thee%tra3udicial settlement, there +ould be no -nalad3udication o the case +ithout involving Pedro6sinterest.

Geril$, Pedro6s interest in the sub3ect matter o the suitand in the relie sought are so ine%tricabl$ intert+ined+ith that o the other parties. is legal presence as apart$ to the proceedings is, thereore, an absolute

necessit$. is interest in the controvers$ and in thesub3ect matter is not separable rom the interest o theother parties.

It is unortunate that petitioners ailed to implead Pedroas deendant in their complaint. Interestingl$, ho+ever,the$ realied such mistae, albeit belatedl$, and thussought the amendment o the complaint to 3oin him as adeendant, but the RTC reused to grant the same.

5ell8settled is the rule that 3oinder o indispensableparties is mandator$. It is a condition sine /ua non to thee%ercise o 3udicial po+er. The absence o anindispensable part$ renders all subse/uent actions o thecourt null and void or +ant o authorit$ to act, not onl$as to the absent parties but even as to those present.5ithout the presence o indispensable parties to the suit,

the 3udgment o the court cannot attain -nalit$. One +hois not a part$ to a case is not bound b$ an$ decision o the court@ other+ise, he +ill be deprived o his right todue process. That is +h$ the case is generall$ remandedto the court o origin or urther proceedings. In light o these premises, no -nal ruling can be had onthe validit$ o the e%tra3udicial settlement. 5hile +e+ish to abide b$ the mandate on speed$ disposition o cases, +e cannot render a premature 3udgment on themerits. To do so could result in a possible violation o dueprocess. The inclusion o Pedro is necessar$ or thee4ective and complete resolution o the case and inorder to accord all parties the bene-t o due process andair pla$. !evertheless, the non83oinder o indispensable parties isnot a ground or the dismissal o an action. The remed$is to implead the non8part$ claimed to be indispensable.Parties ma$ be added b$ order o the court on motion o the part$ or on its o+n initiative at an$ stage o theaction andNor at such times as are 3ust. I the plainti4 reuses to implead an indispensable part$ despite theorder o the court, then the court ma$ dismiss thecomplaint or the plainti46s ailure to compl$ +ith ala+ul court order.


9/21

"I=ING @ S!NS! INC. vs. 7A"AAN INSURANC!G.R. No. 13#53 September 2;, 2012

FACTS

Petitioner +as the main contractor o the !et+orPro3ect o Elobe Telecom in *indanao. It entered into aSub8Contract Agreement +ith ou *ac, Inc. :*I; toundertae an underground open trench +or.

*I secured suret$ and perormance bonds rom*ala$an Insurance to ans+er or its liabilities in case itails to perorm its obligation.

*I commenced its e%cavation. o+ever, P5Cordered a +or stoppage -nding *IDs +or

unsatisactor$. Thereater, petitioner terminated the subcontract agreement or ailure o *I to adopt correctivemeasures.

Petitioner -led a complaint premised on respondentDsliabilit$, seeing or indemni-cation o the amount o &'million.

Seeing the dismissal o the complaint, respondentclaimed that *I is an indispensable part$ that shouldbe impleaded and +hose liabilit$ should -rst bedetermined beore respondent can be held liable.

On the other hand, petitioner asserted that respondent isa suret$ +ho is directl$ and primaril$ liable to indemni$petitioner, and that the bond is


10/21

H!IRS OF 7!SINA vs. H!IRS OF FIANG.R. No. 20181; Apr& 8, 2013

FACTS

The late Spouses *esina bought rom Spouses 9ian t+oparcels o land on installment located in #e$te. "pon thedeath o Spouses 9ian, their heirs claimed o+nershipover the parcels o land, too possession o them,reused to acno+ledgement pa$ments or the lots anddenied that their late parents sold the propert$.

espite repeated demands, the heirs o 9ian reused tovacate the lots. ence, the heirs o *esina -led anaction or /uieting o title.

Theresa 9ian -led a motion to dismiss arguing that thecomplaint states no cause o action and or grossviolation o Section & and B o Rule 1 o Rules o Court.:5ho ma$ be parties, real part$ in interest.

She claimed that eirs o


11/21

IS7A!" 7ATHA vs. CONSO"I9AT!9 ?AN G.R. No. 20181; Apr& 8, 2013

FACTS

Samuel *atha$, et. al +ere ormer stocholders o Consolidated *ines. The$ -led a C#ASS S"IT against C*Icontaining si% causes o actions. eendants -led amotion to dismiss on the ground that plainti4s had nolegal standing or capacit$ to institute the alleged classsuit.

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss holdingthat the class suit could not be maintained because o the absence o sho+ing in the complaint that theplainti4s +ere sufcientl$ numerous and representative.

Plainti4s contended that the propriet$ o a class suitshould be determined b$ the commonalit$ o interest inthe sub3ect matter and that the test in order todetermine the legal standing o a part$ to institute aclass suit, +as not one o number but +hether or not theinterest o a part$ +as representative o the persons in+hose behal the class suit +as instituted.

ISSU!

Whether or not the instant action could bemaintained as a class suit.

RU"ING

The governing statutor$ provision or the maintenance o a class suit is Section &B o Rule 1 o the Rules o Court,+hich reads as ollo+s2Sec. &B. Class suit 5hen the sub3ect matter o thecontrovers$ is one o common or general interest toman$ persons, and the parties are so numerous that it isimpracticable to bring them all beore the court, one ormore ma$ sue or deend or the bene-t o 8ill. Fut insuch case the court shall mae sure that the parties

actuall$ beore it are sufcientl$ numerous andrepresentative so that all interests concerned are ull$protected. An$ part$ in interest shall have a right tointervene in protection o his individual interest.

The necessar$ elements or the maintenance o a classsuit are accordingl$2:&; that the sub3ect matter o the controvers$ be one o common or general interest to man$ persons, and:B; that such persons be so numerous as to mae it

impracticable to bring them all to the court.

An action does not become a class suit merel$ becauseit is designated as such in the pleadings. 5hether thesuit is or is not a class /uit depends upon the attendingacts, and the complaint, or other pleading initiating theclass action should allege the e%istence o the necessar$acts, to +it, the e%istence o a sub3ect matter o common interest, and the e%istence o a class and thenumber o persons in the alleged class, in order that thecourt might be enabled to determine +hether themembers o the class are so numerous as to mae itimpracticable to bring them all beore the court, tocontrast the number appearing on the record +ith thenumber in the class and to determine +hether claimantson record ade/uatel$ represent the class and the sub3ectmatter o general or common interest.

The complaint in the instant case e%plicitl$ declared thatthe plainti4s8 appellants instituted the


12/21

Separate wrongs to separate persons, althoughcommitted by similar means and e#en pursuant to asingle plan, do not alone create a %common% or %general%interest in those who are wronged so as to entitle themto maintain a representati#e action.

It ma$ be granted that the claims o all the appellantsinvolved the same /uestion o la+. Fut this alone, as saidabove, did not constitute the common interest over the

sub3ect matter indispensable in a class suit. The right topurchase or subscribe to the shares o the proposedFan, claimed b$ appellants herein, is analogous to theright o preemption that stocholders have +hen theircorporation increases its capital. The right topreemption, it has been said, is personal to eachstocholder, &7 and +hile a stocholder ma$ maintain asuit to compel the issuance o his proportionate share o stoc, it has been ruled, nevertheless, that he ma$ notmaintain a representative action on behal o otherstocholders +ho are similarl$ situated. F$ analog$, theright o each o the appellants to subscribe to the +aivedstocs +as personal, and no one o them could maintainon behal o others similarl$ situated a representativesuit.

F$ analog$, the right o each o the appellants to

subscribe to the +aived stocs +as personal, and no oneo them could maintain on behal o others similarl$situated a representative suit.Appellants, urthermore, insisted that insufcienc$ o number in a class suit +as not a ground or dismissal o one action. This Court has, ho+ever, said that +here itappeared that no sufcient representative parties hadbeen 3oined, the dismissal b$ the trial court o the action,despite the contention b$ plainti4s that it +as a classsuit, +as correct. *oreover, insoar as the instant case isconcerned, even i it be granted or the sae o argument, that the suit could not be dismissed on thatground, it could have been dismissed, nevertheless, onthe ground o lac o cause o action +hich +ill bepresentl$ discussed.

""ANADS SUP!R7AR!T vs. N"RC

FACTS

#lana emplo$ed several people +ho +ere members o !ational #abor "nion.

The emplo$ees alleged that the$ +ere underpaid,re/uired to +or more than ? hours a da$ +ithoutovertime pa$, deprived o legal holida$ pa$ and monthl$emergenc$ allo+ance.

The "nion in behal o its members -led a complaintagainst the ofcials o #lanaDs Supermaret beore the#abor Arbiter. The "nion maniested through itsauthoried representative that it +as intended as aC#ASS suit.

#abor Arbiter ruled in avor o the emplo$ees +hich +asafrmed b$ !#RC.

Petitioner alleged that the cases do not all under theterm


13/21

SU"O NG ?AAN vs. ARAN!TA, INC.G.R. No. "6310;1 A**st 1#, 1#;

FACTS

Sulo ng Fa$an, a non stoc corporation, -led an actionagainst Eregorio Araneta Inc. to recover o+nership andpossession o a large tract o land in Fulacan.

Araneta -led a motion to dismiss alleging that thecomplaint states no cause o action.

The trial court dismissed the complaint holding that theplainti4 laced personalit$ to -le the instant action itappearing clearl$ that the action has not been -led b$

the real parties in interest, the members o thecorporation, hence, should be dismissed on the groundo lac o cause o action.

ISSU!

Whether or not plainti( corporation may institutean action in behalf of its individual members for the recovery of certain parcels of land allegedly owned by said members.

RU"ING

It is a doctrine +ell8established and obtains both at la+and in e/uit$ that a corporation is a distinct legal entit$to be considered as separate and apart rom theindividual stocholders or members +ho compose it, andis not a4ected b$ the personal rights, obligations andtransactions o its stocholders or members. Thepropert$ o the corporation is its propert$ and not that o the stocholders, as o+ners, although the$ have e/uities

in it. Properties registered in the name o the corporationare o+ned b$ it as an entit$ separate and distinct romits members. Conversel$, a corporation ordinaril$ has nointerest in the individual propert$ o its stocholdersunless transerred to the corporation,


14/21

resolve the remaining issue o +hether or not theplainti4s action or reconve$ance o real propert$ basedupon constructive or implied trust had alread$prescribed.

OPOSA, et. %. vs. FACTORANG.R. No. 101083 >* 30, 13

FACTS

A class suit +as -led b$ minors uan Antonio Oposa, etal., representing their generation and generations $etunborn, and represented b$ their parents against9ulgencio 9actoran r., Secretar$ o )!R. The$ pra$edthat 3udgment be rendered ordering the deendant, his

agents, representatives and other persons acting in hisbehal to2

&. Cancel all e%isting Timber #icensingAgreements :T#A; in the countr$@

B.Cease and desist rom receiving, accepting,processing, rene+ing, or appraising ne+ T#As@

and granting the plainti4s such other relies 3ust ande/uitable under the premises.

The$ alleged that the$ have a clear and constitutionalright to a balanced and healthul ecolog$ and areentitled to protection b$ the State in its capacit$ asparens patriae. 9urthermore, the$ claim that the act o the deendant in allo+ing T#A holders to cut anddeorest the remaining orests constitutes amisappropriation andNor impairment o the naturalresources propert$ he holds in trust or the bene-t o theplainti4 minors and succeeding generations.

The deendant -led a motion to dismiss the complaint onthe ground that the plainti4s have no cause o actionagainst him.

ISSU!

*o the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in"ling a class suit to +prevent themisappropriation or impairment of hilippinerainforests,

RU"ING

Petitioners instituted Civil Case !o. K'8000 as a classsuit. The original deendant and the present respondentsdid not tae issue +ith this matter.

!evertheless, 5e hereb$ rule that the said civil case isindeed a class suit. The sub3ect matter o the complaintis o common and general interest not 3ust to several,but to all citiens o the Philippines. Conse/uentl$, sincethe parties are so numerous, it becomes impracticable, i not totall$ impossible, to bring all o them beore thecourt. 5e lie+ise declare that the plainti4s therein arenumerous and representative enough to ensure the ullprotection o all concerned interests. ence, all there/uisites or the -ling o a valid class suit under Section&B, Rule 1 o the Revised Rules o Court are present bothin the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latterbeing but an incident to the ormer.

This case, ho+ever, has a special and novel element.Petitioners minors assert that the$ represent their

generation as +ell as generations $et unborn. 5e -nd nodifcult$ in ruling that the$ can, or themselves, orothers o their generation and or the succeedinggenerations, -le a class suit. Their personalit$ to sue inbehal o the succeeding generations can onl$ be basedon the concept o &'tere'er%t&o'% respo's&b&&tinsoar as the right to a balanced and healthul ecolog$is concerned. Such a right, as hereinater e%pounded,considers the


15/21

ROSA"INA ?ONIFACIO vs. HON. NATI=I9A99I:ON

G.R. No. #


16/21

In the case at bar, SalindonDs counsel ater her death onecember &&, &K07 ailed to inorm the court o SalindonDs death. The appellate court could not bee%pected to no+ or tae 3udicial notice o the death o Salindon +ithout the proper maniestation romSalindonDs counsel.

I' s*) % %se %'- o's&-er&' t)%t t)e

s*perve'&' -e%t) o/ %ppe%'t -&- 'ot eEt&'*&s))er &v& perso'%&t, t)e %ppe%te o*rt (%s (e(&t)&' &ts *r&s-&t&o' to proee- %s &t -&- (&t) t)e%se. T)ere &s 'o s)o(&' t)%t t)e %ppe%teo*rtDs proee-&'s &' t)e %se (ere t%&'te- (&t)&rre*%r&t&es.

Private respondentDs challenge against the proceedingsheld ater Olimpio FoniacioDs death cannot thereore beheeded.

Q)3ectment case survives the death o a part$. ence,court did not lose its 3urisdiction ater death becausedeath did not e%tinguish civil personalit$.

SPS. 9!"A CRU: vs. P!9RO >OAUING.R. No. 1;2#88 >* 28, 2005

FACTS

The case originated rom a Complaint or the recover$ o possession and o+nership, the cancellation o title, anddamages, -led b$ Pedro oa/uin against petitioners inthe RTC.

The RTC ruled in avor o respondent ordering hereinpetitioners to reconve$ the propert$ upon his pa$ment.

Petitioners assert that the RTC6s ecision +as invalid orlac o 3urisdiction claiming that respondent died duringthe pendenc$ o the case and there being nosubstitution b$ the heirs, the trial court allegedl$ laced

3urisdiction over the litigation.

ISSU!

W the trial court lost jurisdiction over the caseupon the death of edro Joaquin.

RU"ING

5hen a part$ to a pending action dies and the claim isnot e%tinguished, the Rules o Court re/uire asubstitution o the deceased. The procedure isspeci-call$ governed b$ Section &7 o Rule 1, +hichreads thus2

Section &7. 'eath of a party( duty of counsel. )5henever a part$ to a pendingaction dies, and the claim is not thereb$

e%tinguished, it shall be the dut$ o hiscounsel to inorm the court +ithin thirt$ :1';da$s ater such death o the act thereo,and to give the name and address o hislegal representative or representatives.9ailure o counsel to compl$ +ith this dut$shall be a ground or disciplinar$ action.

The heirs o the deceased ma$ be allo+ed tobe substituted or the deceased, +ithoutre/uiring the appointment o an e%ecutor oradministrator and the court ma$ appoint aguardian ad litem or the minor heirs.

The court shall orth+ith order said legalrepresentative or representatives to appearand be substituted +ithin a period o thirt$

:1'; da$s rom notice.


17/21

This general rule not+ithstanding, a formal substitutionb$ heirs is not necessar$ +hen the$ themselvesvoluntaril$ appear, participate in the case, and presentevidence in deense o the deceased. These actionsnegate an$ claim that the right to due process +asviolated.

The Court is not una+are o Chittic$ #. Court of *ppeals,in +hich the ailure o the heirs to substitute or the

original plainti4 upon her death led to the nulli-cation o the trial court6s ecision. The latter had sought torecover support in arrears and her share in the con3ugalpartnership. The children +ho allegedl$ substituted orher reused to continue the case against their ather andvehementl$ ob3ected to their inclusion as parties.

*oreover, because he died during the pendenc$ o thecase, the$ +ere bound to substitute or the deendantalso. The substitution e4ectivel$ merged the persons o the plainti4 and the deendant and thus e%tinguished theobligation being sued upon. Clearl$, the present case is not similar, much lessidentical, to the actual milieu o Chittic$ .

Strictl$ speaing, the rule on the substitution b$ heirs is

not a matter o 3urisdiction, but a re/uirement o dueprocess. Thus, +hen due process is not violated, as +henthe right o the representative or heir is recognied andprotected, noncompliance or belated ormal compliance+ith the Rules cannot a4ect the validit$ o apromulgated decision. *ere ailure to substitute or adeceased plainti4 is not a sufcient ground to nulli$ atrial court6s decision. The alleging part$ must prove thatthere +as an undeniable violation o due process.

Substitution in the Instant Case The records o the present case contain a


18/21

substantiall$ a4ected b$ the decision rendered therein. Thus, it is onl$ +hen there is a denial o due process, as+hen the deceased is not represented b$ an$ legalrepresentative or heir, that the court nulli-es the trialproceedings and the resulting 3udgment therein. 9ormal substitution b$ heirs is not necessar$ +hen the$themselves voluntaril$ appear, participate in the case,and present evidence in deense o the deceased. Insuch case, there is reall$ no violation o the right to due

process. The essence o due process is the reasonableopportunit$ to be heard and to submit an$ evidenceavailable in support o one6s deense.

5hen due process is not violated, as +hen the right o the representative or heir is recognied and protected,noncompliance or belated ormal compliance +ith theRules cannot a4ect the validit$ o a promulgateddecision. In light o these pronouncements, +e cannot nulli$ theproceedings beore the trial court and the 3udgmentrendered therein because the petitioner, +ho +as, inact, a co8deendant o the deceased, activel$participated in the case. The records sho+ that thecounsel o uan !apere and petitioner continued torepresent them even ater uan6s death. ence, through

counsel, petitioner +as able to ade/uatel$ deendhersel and the deceased in the proceedings belo+. ueprocess simpl$ demands an opportunit$ to be heard andthis opportunit$ +as not denied petitioner.

9inall$, the alleged denial o due process as +ould nulli$the proceedings and the 3udgment thereon can beinvoed onl$ b$ the heirs +hose rights have beenviolated. Giolation o due process is a personal deensethat can onl$ be asserted b$ the persons +hose rightshave been allegedl$ violated. Petitioner, +ho had ever$opportunit$ and +ho too advantage o suchopportunit$, through counsel, to participate in the trialcourt proceedings, cannot claim denial o due process.

SPS. CARAN9ANG vs. H!IRS OF 9! GU:7ANG.R. No. 1;03


19/21

Thus, lac o 3urisdiction over the person, being sub3ectto +aiver, is a personal deense +hich can onl$ beasserted b$ the part$ +ho can thereb$ +aive it b$silence.

It also pa$s to loo into the spirit behind the general rulere/uiring a ormal substitution o heirs. The underl$ingprinciple thereor is not reall$ because substitution o heirs is a 3urisdictional re/uirement, but because non8

compliance there+ith results in the undeniable violationo the right to due process o those +ho, though not dul$noti-ed o the proceedings, are substantiall$ a4ected b$the decision rendered therein. Such violation o dueprocess can onl$ be asserted b$ the persons +hoserights are claimed to have been violated, namel$ theheirs to +hom the adverse 3udgment is sought to beenorced.

Care should, ho+ever, be taen in appl$ing the oregoingconclusions. In People v. 9lorendo, +here +e lie+iseheld that the proceedings that too place ater the deatho the part$ are void, +e gave another reason or suchnullit$2


20/21

the li/uidation and settlement o the con3ugal propert$. The reason or this is that upon the death o one spouse,the po+ers o administration o the surviving spouseceases and is passed to the administrator appointed b$the court having 3urisdiction over the settlement o estate proceedings. Indeed, the surviving spouse is noteven a de facto administrator such that conve$ancesmade b$ him o an$ propert$ belonging to thepartnership prior to the li/uidation o the mass o

con3ugal partnership propert$ is void.

It must be noted that or marriages governed b$ therules o con3ugal partnership o gains, an obligationentered into b$ the husband and +ie is chargeableagainst their con3ugal partnership and it is thepartnership +hich is primaril$ bound or its repa$ment.

Thus, +hen the spouses are sued or the enorcement o an obligation entered into b$ them, the$ are beingimpleaded in their capacit$ as representatives o thecon3ugal partnership and not as independent debtorssuch that the concept o 3oint or solidar$ liabilit$, asbet+een them, does not appl$. Fut even assuming thecontrar$ to be true, the nature o the obligation involvedin this case, as +ill be discussed later, is not solidar$ butrather merel$ 3oint, maing Imperial still inapplicable tothis case.

9rom the oregoing, it is clear that private respondentcannot maintain the present suit against petitioner.Rather, his remed$ is to -le a claim against the Alipios inthe proceeding or the settlement o the estate o petitionerDs husband or, i none has been commenced,he can -le a petition either or the issuance o letters o administration or or the allo+ance o +ill, depending on+hether petitionerDs husband died intestate or testate.Private respondent cannot short8circuit this procedure b$lumping his claim against the Alipios +ith those againstthe *anuels considering that, aside rom petitionerDslac o authorit$ to represent their con3ugal estate, theinventor$ o the AlipiosD con3ugal propert$ is necessar$beore an$ claim chargeable against it can be paid.!eedless to sa$, such po+er e%clusivel$ pertains to thecourt having 3urisdiction over the settlement o thedecedentDs estate and not to an$ other court.

H!IRS OF 7!9RANO vs. !STANIS"AO 9! =!RAG.R. No. 1;5##0 A**st , 2010

FACTS

This case concerns a parcel o land o+ned b$ 9laviana."pon her death, her intestate heirs hal8sisters ilariaand )lena +aived all their rights to 9lavianas land inavor o 9rancisca *edrano.

5hen ilaria and )lena died, some o their heirs afrmed

transer o propert$ +hile others did not. This prompted*edrano to -le a case against such heirs.

Respondent )stanislao e Gera -led an Ans+er +ithCounterclaim alleging that some o the deendantstranserred their interest over the properties to him.

Thereater, he made a voluntar$ appearance in the caseas the transeree o the deendantDs rights to the sub3ectpropert$.

*edrano presented evidence e% parte. The case +asdecided in her avor.

e Gera -led a motion or reconsideration arguing thathe +as an indispensable part$ +ho +as not given anopportunit$ to present his evidence.

RU"ING

5e sustain the CA6s ruling that the trial court gravel$abused its discretion in reusing to allo+ e Gera toparticipate in the case and re/uiring him to -le amotion to intervene.

The trial court mis3udged e Gera6s interest in CivilCase !o. "801&7. It held that e Gera6s right toparticipate in the case +as independent o thenamed deendants. Fecause o its ruling that e Gerahad an


21/21

transeree pendente lite, he +ould be bound b$ an$ 3udgment against his transerors under the rules o res 3udicata. Thus, e Gera6s interest cannot beconsidered and tried separatel$ rom the interest o the named deendants.

It +as thereore +rong or the trial court to have tried*edrano6s case against the named deendants :b$

allo+ing *edrano to present evidence e% parteagainst them; ater it had alread$ admitted e Gera6sans+er. 5hat the trial court should have done is totreat e Gera :as transeree pendente lite; as havingbeen 3oined as a part$8deendant, and to tr$ the caseon the basis o the ans+er e Gera had -led and +ithe Gera6s participation. As transeree pendente lite,e Gera ma$ be allo+ed to 3oin the originaldeendants under Rule 1, Section &K2

S)C. &K. Transer o interest. L In case o an$ transero interest, the action ma$ be continued b$ oragainst the original part$, unless the court uponmotion directs the person to +hom the interest istranserred to be substituted in the action or 3oined+ith the original part$. :)mphasis supplied;

The above provision gives the trial court discretion toallo+ or disallo+ the substitution or 3oinder b$ thetranseree. iscretion is permitted because, ingeneral, the transeree6s interest is deemed b$ la+as ade/uatel$ represented and protected b$ theparticipation o his transerors in the case.

There ma$ be no need or the transeree pendentelite to be substituted or 3oined in the case because, inlegal contemplation, he is not reall$ deniedprotection as his interest is one and the same as histranserors, +ho are alread$ parties to the case. 5hile the rule allo+s or discretion, the paramountconsideration or the e%ercise thereo should be theprotection o the parties6 interests and their rights to

due process. In the instant case, the circumstancesdemanded that the trial court e%ercise its discretionin avor o allo+ing e Gera to 3oin in the action andparticipate in the trial. It +ill be remembered that thetrial court had alread$ admitted e Gera6s ans+er+hen it declared the original deendants in deault.As there +as a transeree pendente lite +hoseans+er had alread$ been admitted, the trial courtshould have tried the case on the basis o thatans+er, based on

Rule K, Section 1:c;2)4ect o partial deault. L 5hen a pleading assertinga claim states a common cause o action againstseveral deending parties, some o +hom ans+er andthe others ail to do so, the court shall tr$ the case

against all upon the ans+ers thus -led and render 3udgment upon the evidence presented.

Thus, the deault o the original deendants shouldnot result in the e% parte presentation o evidencebecause e Gera :a transeree pendente lite +homa$ thus be 3oined as deendant under Rule 1,Section &K; -led an ans+er. The trial court shouldhave tried the case based on e Gera6s ans+er,+hich ans+er is deemed to have been adopted b$the non8ans+ering deendants.

To proceed +ith the e% parte presentation o evidence against the named deendants ater eGera6s ans+er had been admitted +ould not onl$ bea violation o Rule K, Section 1:c;, but +ould also bea gross disregard o e Gera6s right to due process. This is because the e% parte presentation o evidence+ould result in a deault 3udgment +hich +ould bindnot 3ust the deaulting deendants, but also e Gera,

precisel$ because he is a transeree pendente lite. This +ould result in an anomal$ +herein e Gera+ould be bound b$ a deault 3udgment even i he had-led an ans+er and e%pressed a desire to participatein the case.

5e note that under Rule 1, Section &K, thesubstitution or 3oinder o the transeree is

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	agustin-ep
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Antonio Chua Vs

Documents