De Castro vs CA CASE DIGEST - Civil Procedure - Real Party in Interest - Indispensable Party

De Castro vs. Ca

TOPIC: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST;

FACTS: Petitioners De Castro were co-owners of 4 lots. In a letter, Antigo was authorized by the De Castros to act as real estate broker in the sale of these properties for the amount of P23m, 5% of which will be given to him as commission. Antigo found Times Transit Corporation, its president Mr. Rondaris, as a prospective buyer which desired to buy 2 lots only, specifically lots 14 and 15. Eventually, the sale of lots 14 and 15 was consummated.

Antigo however received only P48k as commission. He asserted that his total commission should be P352k which is 5% of the agreed price of P7m for the 2 lots. Artigo then sued Constante and Corazon De Castro to collect the unpaid balance of his broker’s commission from the De Castros. One of the defenses advanced by the De Castro is that complaint failed to implead their other siblings who were co-owners as well.

CA affirmed RTC that that Artigo’s complaint is not dismissible for failure to implead as indispensable parties the other co-owners of the two lots. It is not necessary to implead the other co-owners since the action is exclusively based on a contract of agency between Artigo and Constante.

Issue: WON the complaint should be dismissed for failure to implead indispensable parties.

Held: No. An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory and courts cannot proceed without their presence. Whenever it appears to the court in the course of a proceeding that an indispensable party has not been joined, it is the duty of the court to stop the trial and order the inclusion of such party.

However, the rule on mandatory joinder of indispensable parties is not applicable to the instant case. Under the note/letter sent by the De Castro to Antigo, a contract of agency was clearly constituted between Constante and Artigo. Whether Constante appointed Artigo as agent, in Constante’s individual or representative capacity, or both, the De Castros cannot seek the dismissal of the case for failure to implead the other co-owners as indispensable parties.