D2. Parties to Civil Actions (Rule 3) Flashcards
INDISPENSABLE PARTY
Party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action. (Sec. 7, Rule 3, ROC, as amended) An indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. (Riano, 2019, citing Benedicto-Muñoz v. Cacho-Olivares, G.R. No. 179121, 9 Nov. 2015)
Tests to determine whether a _Party is an
Indispensable Party
- Can relief be afforded to the plaintiff without the presence of the other party?
- Can the case be decided on its merits without prejudicing the rights of the other party? (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, 15 July 2003)
Unwilling Co-Plaintiff
A party who is supposed to be a plaintiff but whose consent to be joined cannot be obtained, as when he refuses to be a party to the action. He may be made a defendant, and the reasons therefor shall be stated in the complaint. (Sec. 10, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
Q: Conrado Nobleza, Sr. owned a 313-square meter parcel of land located in Iloilo City covered by (TCT) No. T- 12255. Upon Conrado’s death some of his children sold their respective interests over the subject land to a certain Santiago for a consideration of 447,695.66, as embodied in a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement or Adjudication with Deed of Sale which was, however, not signed by the other heirs who did not sell their respective shares. Because of this, he was not able to have TCT No. T-12255 cancelled and the subject document registered. This prompted Santiago to file a Complaint for judicial partition and for receivership. The RTC ordered the partition of the subject land between Santiago and the heirs of Conrado who did not sign on the said Deed. On appeal, the CA set aside the ruling of the RTC and held that the heirs of Conrado who did not sign on the said Deed are indispensable parties to the judicial partition of the subject land and, thus, their noninclusion as defendants in Santiago’s complaint would necessarily result in its dismissal. Is the CA correct in dismissing Santiago’s complaint for his failure to implead all the heirs of Conrado?
A: NO. Although the heirs of Conrado who are not impleaded in the complaint are indispensable parties to the case, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. With regard to actions for partition, Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court requires that all persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants. Thus, all the co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties; as such, an action for partition will not lie without the joinder of the said parties. However, the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint because of Santiago’s failure to implead all the indispensable parties in his complaint. The Court definitively explained that in instances of nonjoinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead them and not to dismiss the case. (Divinagracia v. Parilla, et al., G.R. No. 196750, 11 Mar. 2015)
REPRESENTATIVE AS PARTIES
Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real property in interest. (Sec. 3, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
Who may be representatives:
- A trustee of an express trust;
- An executor or administrator; and
- A party authorized by law or the Rules. (Ibid.)
NOTE: An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
NECESSARY PARTY
Those who are not indispensable but ought to be joined as parties:
- If complete relief is to be accorded to those already parties; or
- For a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. (Sec. 8, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. (Sec 9, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES V. NECESSARY PARTIES
INDESPENSABLE PTYS
Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. (Sec. 7, Rule 3, ROC, as amended) Must be joined under any and all conditions because the court cannot proceed without him or her. (Riano, 2019)
No valid judgment if they are not joined.
NECESSARY PARTIES
A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if: 1. Complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties; or 2. For a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. (Sec. 8, Rule 3, ROC, as amended) Necessary parties should be joined whenever possible; however, the action can proceed even in their absence because his interest is separable from that of indispensable party. (Ibid.
N2
The case may be determined in court but the judgment therein will not afford a complete relief in favor of the prevailing party.
Rule when the Defendant’s Name or Identity is Unknown
He may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require. However, when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly. (Sec. 14, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
INDIGENT PARTY (2016 BAR)
Who are indigents?
He or she is one:
- Whose gross income and that of his immediate family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee NOTE: The term “immediate family” includes those members of the same household who are bound together by ties of relationship but does not include those who are living apart from the particular household of which the individual is a member (Tokio Marine Malaya v. Valdez, G.R. No. 150107-08, 28 Jan. 2008); and
- Who does not own real property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax declaration of more than Php 300,000.00. (Sec. 19, Rule 141, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC) He or she is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family. (Sec. 21, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: He or she shall be exempt from the payment of legal fees.
For purposes of a suit in forma pauperis, an indigent litigant is not really a pauper, but is properly a person who is an indigent although not a public charge, meaning that he has no property or income sufficient for his support aside from his labor, even if he is self-supporting when able to work and in employment. (Tokio Marine Malaya v. Valdez, supra.)
Rule on Indigent Litigants
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property requirements under Sec. 19, Rule 141, then the grant of the application is mandatory.
However, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements have not been met, then it would set a hearing to enable the applicant to prove that the applicant has “no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family”, as provided in Sec. 21, Rule 3. In that hearing, the adverse party may adduce countervailing evidence to disprove the evidence presented by the applicant; after which the trial court will rule on the application depending on the evidence adduced.
In addition, Sec. 21, Rule 3 also provides that the adverse party may later still contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court, possibly based on newly discovered evidence not obtained at the time the application was heard. (Algura v. LGU of Naga, G.R. No. 150135, 30 Oct. 2006)
Authority as an Indigent Party to Litigate
includes an Exemption from the Payment of:
- Docket fees and other lawful fees; and
- Transcript of stenographic notes. (Sec. 21, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless otherwise provided. (Sec. 21, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS
Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he or may join any or all of them in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right to relief against the other. (Sec. 13, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
