Relucio vs Lopez CASE DIGEST - Civil Procedure - Real Party in Interest - Necessary Party

Relucio vs. Lopez

TOPIC: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST; NECESSARY PARTY

FACTS: Angelina Lopez filed a petition for Appointment as Sole Administratix of Conjugal Partnership of Properties, Forfeiture, etc. against her husband Alberto and Imelda Relucio, for Alberto abandoned Angelina and her four children and maintained an illicit relationship with Relucio.

A motion to dismiss was filed by Relucio on the ground that Angelina Lopez has no cause of action against her. RTC denied her Motion to Dismiss on the ground that some of the properties are registered in her name. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Relucio but the same was denied by the RTC. CA denied.

ISSUE: WON Relucio is an indispensable party or only a necessary party.

HELD: Neither. “A real party in interest is one who stands "to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit." In this case, petitioner would not be affected by any judgment in Special Proceedings.

If petitioner is not a real party in interest, she cannot be an indispensable party. An indispensable party is one without whom there can be no final determination of an action. Petitioner's participation in Special Proceeding is not indispensable. Certainly, the trial court can issue a judgment ordering Alberto to make an accounting of his conjugal partnership with respondent, and give support to respondent and their children, and dissolve Alberto’s conjugal partnership with respondent, and forfeit Alberto’s share in property co-owned by him and petitioner. Such judgment would be perfectly valid and enforceable against Alberto. Nor can petitioner be a necessary party in Special Proceedings.

A necessary party as one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as party if complete relief is to be accorded those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. In the context of her petition in the lower court, respondent would be accorded complete relief if Alberto were ordered to account for his alleged conjugal partnership property with respondent, give support to respondent and her children, turn over his share in the co-ownership with petitioner and dissolve his conjugal partnership or absolute community property with respondent.