Bacalso Vs Padigos Torts

Bacalso vs Padigos (Rule 3)
Facts:
1) The case involves a parcel of land located in Inayawan, Cebu in the name of 13 co-owners.
2) Maximo Padigos (Maximo), Flaviano Mabuyo (Flaviano), Gaudencio Padigos (Gaudencio), Domingo Padigos (Domingo), and
Victoria P. Abarquez (Victoria), who are among the herein respondents, filed on April 17, 1995, before the RTC of Cebu City, a
Complaint, against Rosendo Bacalso (Rosendo) and Rodrigo Bacalso (Rodrigo) who are among the herein petitioners, for quieting of
title, declaration of nullity of documents, recovery of possession, and damages.
Their allegations:
a) Maximo and Flaviano are children of the deceased co-owner Simplicio; Gaudencio and Domingo are children of the
deceased co-owner Ignacio; Victoria and respondent Lilia P. Gabison (Lilia) are grandchildren of the late co-owner Fortunata
b) Rosendo and Rodrigo are heirs of Alipio Bacalso, Sr. (Alipio, Sr.) who, during his lifetime, secured Tax Declaration Nos. L078-02223 and L-078-02224 covering the lot without any legal basis
c) Rosendo and Rodrigo have been leasing portions of the lot to persons who built houses thereon, and Rosendo has been
living in a house built on a portion of the lot
d) Demands to vacate and efforts at conciliation proved futile, prompting them to file the complaint at the RTC.
3) By way of Reply and Answer, Gaudencio, Maximo, Flaviano, Domingo, and Victoria alleged that the deeds of sale on which Rosendo
and Rodrigo base their claim of ownership of portions of the lot are spurious, but assuming that they are not, laches had set in against
Alipio, Sr.; and that the shares of the other co-owners of the lot cannot be acquired through laches or prescription.
4) Gaudencio, Maximo, Flaviano, Domingo, and Victoria, with leave of court, filed an Amended Complaint impleading as additional
defendants Alipio, Sr.'s other heirs. Still later, Gaudencio et al. filed a Second Amended Complaint with leave of court, impleading as
additional plaintiffs the other heirs of registered co-owner Maximiano,
5) In their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint, petitioners contended that the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed
in view of the failure to implead other heirs of the other registered owners of the lot who are indispensable parties.
6) RTC Cebu ruled in favor of herein respondents.
7) CA affirmed the RTC ruling. The subsequent MR was denied. Hence, this present petition for certiorari.
Issue: Whether the CA erred when it ruled that the Second Amended Complaint is valid and legal, even if not all indispensable parties
are impleaded or joined
Held: Yes. The petition is granted.
Ratio Decidendi:
Respondents admit that Teodulfo Padigos (Teodulfo), an heir of Simplicio, was not impleaded. They contend, however, that the
omission did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction because Article 487 of the Civil Code states that "[a]ny of the co-owners may bring
an action in ejectment." Respondents' contention does not lie. The action is for quieting of title, declaration of nullity of documents,
recovery of possession and ownership, and damages.
[P]arties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. As such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as
defendants. The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires, of course, the joinder of all necessary
parties where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for
the exercise of judicial power. It is precisely "when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) the action should be dismissed."
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.
P etitioners should have been properly impleaded as indispensable parties. The absence then of an indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of a court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent party but even as to those present.

Bacalso Vs Padigos Torts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bacalso Vs Padigos Torts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bacalso Vs Padigos Torts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bacalso vs Padigos (Rule 3)

You might also like