NAVARRO VS ESCOBIDO
TOPIC: Real
Parties in Interest, Indispensable Parties
Facts: Respondent Go filed 2 complaints before the
RTC for replevin and/or sum of money with damages against Navarro. Go
prayed that the RTC issue writs of replevin for the seizure of 2 motor vehicles
in Navarro’s possession. Navarro alleged as a special affirmative defense that
the 2 complaints stated no cause of action, since Go was not a party to the
lease agreements— the actionable documents on which the complaints were based.
RTC dismissed the case but set aside the dismissal on the presumption
that Go’s husband leasing business is a conjugal property and thus ordered Go
to file a motion for the inclusion of her husband as co-plaintiff as per Rule
4, Sec 3. CA denied.
ISSUE: WON
Karen Go is a real party in interest.
Held: YES. Go, as the registered owner of
Kargo Enterprises, is the party who will directly benefit from or be injured by
a judgment in this case. Thus, contrary to Navarro’s contention, Go is the real
party-in-interest, and it is legally incorrect to say that her Complaint does
not state a cause of action because her name did not appear in the Lease
Agreement that her husband signed in behalf of Kargo Enterprises.
Gos are effectively co-owners of Kargo Enterprises and the properties
registered under this name; hence, both have an equal right to seek possession
of these properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner
who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an
indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable parties.
They are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be accorded in
the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to have
been filed for the benefit of all co-owners. Glenn Go is not strictly an
indispensable party in the action to recover possession of the leased vehicles,
he only needs to be impleaded as a pro-forma party to the suit, based on Sec 4,
Rule 4. -Spouses as parties. Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly,
except as provided by law.
No comments:
Post a Comment