Divinagracia vs Parilla CASE DIGEST - Civil Procedure - Real Party in Interest - Indispensable Party

Divinagracia vs. Parilla

Facts: Conrado, Sr. owned a parcel of land.  He had 2 children with his 1st wife and 7 children with his 2nd wife.  He also begot 3 illegitimate children. Both Mateo, Sr. (7 children) and Cebeleo, Sr. (2) pre-deceased Conrado, Sr. Santiago, who bought the shares of majority of the heirs of a property left by Conrado, Sr. He filed a complaint for partition but did not implead Mateo, Sr.’s children.

RTC found that through the subject document, Santiago became a co-owner of the subject land and, as such, has the right to demand the partition of the same. However, Santiago did not validly acquire Mateo, Sr.’s share over the subject land, considering that Felcon (son of Mateo Sr.) admitted the lack of authority to bind his siblings with regard to Mateo, Sr.’s share.

CA dismissed Santiago’s complaint for partition. It held the Mateo, Sr.’s children are indispensable parties to the judicial partition and thus, their non-inclusion as defendants would necessarily result in its dismissal.

Issue:  WON the action for partition proper without impleading Mateo, Sr.’s children

Held:  No because the co-heirs are indispensable parties. They have rights over the subject land and, as such, should be impleaded as indispensable parties in an action for partition.

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 party’s interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Thus, 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. (Domingo v. Scheer). The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.