allowed intervention notwithstanding the rendition of

judgment by the trial court.

Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable Parties; 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
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 85
the court null and void for want of authority to act, not
Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.—
* Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, defines
G.R. No. 155785. April 13, 2007. indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without
whom there can be no final determination of an action. As
SIMPLICIO GALICIA, for himself, and as such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as
Attorney-in-Fact of ROSALIA G. TORRE, defendants. The general rule with reference to the
PAQUITO GALICIA, NELLIE GALICIA, LETICIA making of parties in a civil action requires the joinder of
G. MAESTRO and CLARO GALICIA, petitioners, all necessary parties where possible and the joinder of all
vs. LOURDES MANLIQUEZ Vda. de MINDO and indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their
LILIA RICO MINANO, respondents. presence being a sine qua non for the exer-

_______________
Judgments; Motions; Parties; Jurisprudence is replete
with cases wherein the Court rules that a motion to
* THIRD DIVISION.
intervene may be entertained or allowed even if filed after
judgment was rendered by the trial court, especially in
cases where the intervenors are indispensable parties.—It
86
is true that the allowance and disallowance of a motion to
intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court
hearing the case. However, jurisprudence is replete with
cases wherein the Court ruled that a motion to intervene 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
may be entertained or allowed even if filed after
judgment was rendered by the trial court, especially in Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
cases where the intervenors are indispensable parties. In
Pinlac v. Court of Appeals, 410 SCRA 419 (2003), this cise of judicial power. It is precisely when an
Court held: The rule on intervention, like all other rules indispensable party is not before the court that the
of procedure, is intended to make the powers of the Court action should be dismissed. The absence of an
fully and completely available for justice. It is aimed to indispensable party renders all subsequent actions
facilitate a comprehensive adjudication of rival claims of the court null and void for want of authority to
overriding technicalities on the timeliness of the filing act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to
thereof. Indeed, in exceptional cases, the Court has those present. The evident aim and intent of the Rules
regarding the joinder of indispensable and necessary lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or
parties is a complete determination of all possible issues, estoppel.
not only between the parties themselves but also as
regards to other persons who may be affected by the
87
judgment. A valid judgment cannot even be rendered
where there is want of indispensable parties.
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 87
Same; Same; It is basic that no man shall be affected
by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.
—It is basic that no man shall be affected by any Laches; The question of laches is addressed to the
proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a sound discretion of the court and, being an equitable
case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court. In doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable
the present case, respondents and their co-heirs are considerations.—There is no absolute rule as to what
adversely affected by the judgment rendered by the trial constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to
court considering their ostensible ownership of the be determined according to its particular circumstances.
property. It will be the height of inequity to declare The question of laches is addressed to the sound
herein petitioners as owners of the disputed lot without discretion of the court and, being an equitable doctrine,
giving respondents the opportunity to present any its application is controlled by equitable considerations. It
evidence in support of their claim that the subject cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud and
property still forms part of the estate of their deceased injustice. It is the better rule that courts, under the
predecessor and is the subject of a pending action for principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by
partition among the compulsory heirs. Much more, it is the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to
tantamount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result.
that no person shall be deprived of property without due
process of law. Judgments; Jurisdictions; The settled rule is that a
judgment rendered or final order issued by the RTC
Same; Judgments; As to the timeliness of the petition without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed
for annulment of judgment filed with the CA, Section 3, any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for resisting such judgment or final order in any action or
annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud must be proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless barred by
filed within four years from its discovery; and if based on laches.—The settled rule is that a judgment rendered or
lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null
estoppel.—As to the timeliness of the petition for and void and may be assailed any time either collaterally
annulment of judgment filed with the CA, Section 3, Rule or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final
47 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked,
annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud must be unless barred by laches. Indeed, jurisprudence upholds
filed within four years from its discovery; and if based on the soundness of an independent action to declare as null
and void a judgment rendered without jurisdiction as in The present case originated from a complaint
this case. filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Odiongan, Romblon by herein petitioners, in their
Same; Same; The Court reiterates the ruling in capacity as heirs of Juan Galicia (Juan), against
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company that void Milagros Rico-Glori (Milagros) and her tenants
judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all; it Dominador Musca and Alfonso Fallar, Jr. for
cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any Recovery of Possession and Ownership, Annulment
obligation.—The trial court’s declaration of the of Title, Documents and Other Papers. The case is
defendants as in default in Civil Case No. OD-306 for docketed as Civil Case No. OD-306.
their failure to attend the pre-trial conference and the In their Complaint, petitioners contended that
consequent final and executory judgment by default, are their predecessor, Juan, was the true and lawful
altogether void and of no effect considering that the RTC owner of a parcel of land situated in Concepcion
acted without jurisdiction from the very beginning Sur, Sta. Maria, Romblon known as Lot No. 139
because of non-inclusion of indispensable parties. The and containing an area of 5.5329 hectares, the same
Court reiterates the ruling in Metropolitan Bank and having been declared in his name under various tax
Trust Company that void judgment for want of declarations the latest of which being Tax
jurisdiction is no judgment at all; it cannot be the source Declaration No. 0037, Series of 1994; after years of
of any right nor the creator of any obligation. possession of the said land, Juan was driven away
from the property through force by the heirs of a
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision certain Ines Ramirez (Ines), one of whom is
and resolution of the Court of Appeals. defendant Milagros; because of poverty and lack of
knowledge, Juan was not able to assert his right to
88
the said property but he informed his children that
they own the above-described
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo _______________

1 Penned by Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales (now a member

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. of this Court) and concurred in by Justices Martin S. Villarama,
     Pacianito B. Cabaron for petitioners. Jr. and Sergio L. Pestaño, CA Rollo, pp. 62–74.
     Ramon V. Cajipe, Jr. for respondents. 2 Penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and concurred in
by Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Sergio L. Pestaño, id., at p.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
113.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on 89
Certiorari
1 seeking to annul and set aside the
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
January 14,2 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 58834 and its VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 89
Resolution of October 21, 2002 denying petitioners’ Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
Motion for Reconsideration.
parcel of land; and the continuous possession of the SO ORDERED.”
property by Milagros and her co-defendants,
tenants has further deprived herein petitioners of _______________
their right over the same.
Defendants denied the allegations of petitioners 3 Rollo, pp. 95–96.
in their complaint asserting that Juan was not the
90
owner and never took possession of the disputed lot.
They also contended that the subject property was
part of a larger parcel of land which was acquired 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
by Ines, Milagros’s predecessor-in-interest in 1947
Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
from a certain Juan Galicha who is a different
person from Juan Galicia.
During the scheduled pre-trial conference on On December 15, 1997, the RTC received a Motion
May 21, 1997, none of the defendants appeared. for Leave of Court to Intervene with an attached
They filed a motion for postponement of the pre- Answer-inIntervention filed by the compulsory
trial conference but it was belatedly received by the heirs of Ines, among whom are herein respondents,
trial court. As a consequence, defendants were who are also co-heirs of defendant Milagros. The
declared in default. Herein petitioners, as plaintiffs, intervenors contended that the subject parcel of
were then allowed to present evidence ex parte. land forms part of the estate of Ines which is yet to
On December 2, 1997, the RTC rendered be partitioned among them; an intestate proceeding
judgment with the following dispositive portion: is presently pending in the RTC of Odiongan,
Romblon, Branch 81; the outcome of Civil Case No.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, and by OD-306, one way or the other, would adversely
preponderance of evidence, judgment is hereby rendered affect their interest; their rights would be better
in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants: protected in the said civil case; and their
intervention would not unduly delay, or in any way
1. Declaring plaintiffs as the true and absolute prejudice the rights of the original parties.
owner of the property subject of the case and In its Order of December 23, 1997, the RTC
particularly described in paragraph II of the denied the said motion to intervene on the ground
complaint; that it has already rendered judgment and under
2. Affirming and confirming the validity and legality Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, the motion
of plaintiffs’ ownership over the property; to intervene should have been filed before rendition
3. Ordering defendants to vacate the land adverted of judgment by the trial court.
to in paragraph II of the complaint; Meanwhile, the defendants in Civil Case No. OD-
4. For the defendants to respect plaintiffs’ peaceful 306 filed an appeal with the CA. Their Notice of
possession and ownership of the land aforesaid; Appeal was filed on February 27, 1998. On June 23,
and 1999, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the
appeal for failure of the defendantsappellants to file
5. To pay the costs.
their brief within the extended period granted by
3
the appellate court. On August 13, 1999, the OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS OF
abovementioned CA Resolution became final and PETITIONERS (NOW RESPONDENTS IN THE
executory. ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE), A DECISION NOT IN
Subsequently, the trial court issued a writ of ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE
execution dated March 3, 2000. DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
On May 23, 2000, herein respondents filed a 2. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
petition for annulment of judgment with the CA SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN NOT DISMISSING THE
anchored on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT ON
their persons and property and on extrinsic fraud. THE GROUND OF ESTOPPEL ON THE PART 6 OF THE
On January 14, 2002, the CA promulgated the PETITIONERS IN CA-G.R. SP. NO. 58834.
presently assailed Decision with the following
dispositive portion: As to their first assigned error, petitioners invoke
the principle that jurisdiction over the person is
“WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby acquired by the voluntary appearance of a party in
GRANTED. The Decision dated December 2, 1997 and court and his submission to its authority. Applying
Writ of Execution dated March this rule in the present case, petitioners argue that
by filing their Motion for Leave to Intervene in the
91 RTC, herein respondents voluntarily submitted
themselves to the authority of the trial court, hence
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 91 placing themselves under its jurisdiction; that by
filing the said Motion, they recognized the authority
Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
of the court to hear and decide

3, 2000 of Branch 82 of the Regional Trial Court of

_______________
Odiongan, Romblon are hereby ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE. 4 4 CA Rollo, p. 73.
SO ORDERED.” 5 Id., at p. 113.
6 Rollo, p. 14.
Herein petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration
5 but it was denied by the CA in its 92
Resolution dated October 21, 2002.
Hence, the instant petition for review based on
the following assignment of errors: 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
1. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN ANNULLING AND
not only their Motion but the case itself; and that
SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION DATED 2
by acting on their Motion, the court actually
DECEMBER 1997 AND WRIT OF EXECUTION DATED
exercised jurisdiction over the persons of
3 MARCH 2000 OF BRANCH 82 OF THE REGIONAL
petitioners.
TRIAL COURT OF ODIONGAN, ROMBLON FOR LACK
 With respect to their second assigned error, 93
petitioners contend that by respondents’ voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court they
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 93
are already estopped in denying the authority of the
court which they invoked when they filed their Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
Motion. Petitioners also contend that respondents 7

had several opportunities to raise the issue of the hearing the case. However, jurisprudence is replete
court’s lack of jurisdiction over their persons but with cases wherein the Court ruled that a motion to
they remained silent and did not pursue the intervene may be entertained or allowed even if
remedies available to them for an unreasonable filed after judgment was rendered by the trial court,
length of time; hence, they are now barred by laches especially in cases where
8 the intervenors are
from questioning the court’s jurisdiction. indispensable parties. In Pinlac v. Court of
On the other hand, respondents counter that the Appeals, this Court held:
CA did not err in setting aside the trial court’s
decision on the ground that defendants, as “The rule on intervention, like all other rules of
indispensable parties, were not joined in the procedure, is intended to make the powers of the Court
complaint. Respondents argue that the CA correctly fully and completely available for justice. It is aimed to
held that when an indispensable party is not before facilitate a comprehensive adjudication of rival claims
the court then the action should be dismissed overriding technicalities on the timeliness of the filing
because the absence of such indispensable party thereof. Indeed, in exceptional cases, the Court has
renders all subsequent actions of the court null and allowed intervention notwithstanding
9 the rendition of
void for want of authority to act not only as against judgment by the trial court.”
him but even as against those present.
Since it is not disputed that herein respondents are
Respondents also aver that even assuming that
compulsory heirs of Ines who stand to be affected by
herein petitioners were the true owners of the
the judgment of the trial court, the latter should
subject land, they have lost such ownership by
have granted their Motion to Intervene and should
extinctive prescription because respondents and
have admitted their Answer-inIntervention.
their predecessors had been in uninterrupted
Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, defines
adverse possession of the subject lot for more than
indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without
40 years. As such, they had become the owners
whom there can be no final determination of an
thereof by acquisitive prescription.
action. As such, they must be joined either as
The petition lacks merit but the CA Decision will
plaintiffs or as defendants. The general rule with
have to be modified in the interest of substantial
reference to the making of parties in a civil action
justice and for the orderly administration of justice,
requires the joinder of all necessary parties where
as will be shown forthwith.
possible and the joinder of all indispensable parties
It is true that the allowance and disallowance of
under any and all conditions, their presence being a
a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound
sine qua non for the exer-
discretion of the court
_______________ order of default with motion for reconsideration, are
considered voluntary
15 submission to the jurisdiction
7 Foster-Gallego v. Galang, G.R. No. 130228, July 27, 2004,
of the court. Hence, in the present case, when
435 SCRA 275, 288.
respondents filed their Motion for Leave to
8 Pinlac v. Court of Appeals, 457 Phil. 527, 534–536; 410
Intervene, attaching thereto their Answer-in-
SCRA 419, 425–426 (2003), citing Mago v. Court of Appeals, 363 Intervention, they have effectively submitted
Phil. 225, 234; 303 SCRA 600, 609 (1999); Director of Lands v. themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and the
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45168, September 25, 1979, 93 court, in turn, acquired jurisdiction over their
SCRA, 238, 246; Tahanan Development Corp. v. Court of persons. But this circumstance did not cure the
Appeals, 203 Phil. 652, 690; 118 SCRA 273, 302 (1982). fatal defect of non-inclusion of respondents as
9 Pinlac v. Court of Appeals, id., at p. 534; pp. 424–425. indispensable parties in the complaint filed by
petitioner. It must be emphasized that respondents
94
were not able to participate during the

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED _______________

Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo 10 Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 250, 267; 280 SCRA
10 20, 37 (1997).
cise of judicial power. It is precisely when an 11 Id.
indispensable party is not before the 11court 12 Id., at pp. 267–268; p. 38.
that the action should be dismissed. The 13 Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Alejo, 417 Phil.
absence of an indispensable party renders all 303, 316; 364 SCRA 812, 821 (2001).
subsequent actions of the court null and void 14 Id.
for want of authority to act, not only as to the 12
15 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v.
absent parties but even as to those present. Catalan, G.R. No. 159590, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 498, 515.
The evident aim and intent of the Rules regarding
the joinder of indispensable and necessary parties 95
is a complete determination of all possible issues,
not only between the parties themselves but also as
regards to13other persons who may be affected by the VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 95
judgment. A valid judgment cannot even be Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
rendered 14 where there is want of indispensable
parties. pre-trial much less present evidence in support of
As to the question of whether the trial court their claims. In other words, the court acquired
acquired jurisdiction over the persons of herein jurisdiction over the persons of herein respondents
respondents, the Court has held that the filing of only when they filed their Motion for Leave to
motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit Intervene with the RTC. Prior to that, they were
answer, for additional time to file answer, for strangers to Civil Case No. OD-306.
reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift
 It is basic that no man shall be affected by any 18 Supra note 13, at p. 318.
proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers
96
to a case 16are not bound by judgment rendered by
the court. In the present case, respondents and
their co-heirs are adversely affected by the 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
judgment rendered by the trial court considering
Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
their ostensible ownership of the property. It will be
the height of inequity to declare herein petitioners
as owners of the disputed lot without giving trial court was null and void due to 19 lack of
respondents the opportunity to present any jurisdiction over indispensable parties. The CA
evidence in support of their claim that the subject correctly annulled the RTC Decision and writ of
property still forms part of the estate of their execution.
deceased predecessor and is the subject of a As to the timeliness of the petition for
pending action for partition among the compulsory annulment of judgment filed with the CA, Section
heirs. Much more, it is tantamount to a violation of 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that a
the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be 17
petition for annulment of judgment based on
deprived of property without due process of law. extrinsic fraud must be filed within four years from
This Court held in Metropolitan Bank and Trust its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction,
Company v. Alejo that: before it is barred by laches or estoppel.
The principle of laches or “stale demands”
“A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment ordains that the failure or neglect, for an
at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do
of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and that which by exercising due diligence could or
all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, should have been done earlier, or the negligence or
it can never become final and any writ of execution based omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
on it is void: x x x it may be said to be a lawless thing warrants a presumption that the party entitled to
which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, 18 or assert it20 either has abandoned it or declined to
ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.” assert it.
There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes
In the absence of herein respondents and their co- laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be
heirs who are indispensable parties, the trial court determined 21according to its particular
had in the first place no authority to act on the circumstances. The question of laches is addressed
case. Thus, the judgment of the to the sound discretion of the court and, being an
equitable doctrine, its application
22 is controlled by
_______________ equitable considerations. It cannot be used23 to
defeat justice or perpetrate fraud and injustice. It
16 National Housing Authority v. Evangelista, G.R. No.
is the better rule that courts, under the principle of
140945, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 469, 478 (2005).
equity, will not be guided or bound
17 Id., at p. 479.
_______________ remedies, because they never became parties to
Civil Case No. OD-306.
19 Id., citing Leonor v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 74, 88; 256
The settled rule is that a judgment rendered or
SCRA 69 (1996) and Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, supra note 10,
final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is
at p. 286; p. 57. null and void and may be assailed any time either
20 Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125837, October 6, 2004, collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting such
440 SCRA 121, 135. judgment or final order in any action or proceeding 25
21 Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Querimit, 424 Phil. whenever it is invoked, unless barred by laches.
721, 732; 373 SCRA 665, 673 (2002). Indeed, jurisprudence upholds the soundness of an
22 Id. independent action to declare as null and void a
23 Id. judgment
26 rendered without jurisdiction as in this
case.
97
As a result of and in consonance with the
foregoing discussions, the complaint filed by herein
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 97 petitioners with the trial court should have been
dismissed at the outset, in the absence of
Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
indispensable parties.

strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine

_______________
of laches when24 to do so, manifest wrong or injustice

would result. 24 Ang Ping v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 607, 616; 310 SCRA
In the present case, the CA found no evidence to 343, 352 (1999).
show when respondents acquired knowledge of the 25 Ancheta v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004, 424
complaint that petitioners filed with the RTC. SCRA 725, 735.
Moreover, the Court finds that herein respondents’ 26 Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, supra note 10, at p. 286; p. 57.
right to due process is the overriding consideration
in allowing them to intervene in Civil Case No. OD- 98
306.
Petitioners also fault herein respondents for
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
their failure to avail of other remedies before filing
a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA. Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
Petitioners cited the remedies enumerated by the
RTC in its Order of December 23, 1997. However, Inevitably, the following questions come to mind:
the Court notes that the remedies enumerated what happens to the original defendants who were
therein refer to those available to a party who has declared as in default and judgment by default was
been declared in default. In the present case, herein rendered against them? What happens to the final
respondents could not have been declared in and executory dismissal of the appeal of the
default, and thus could not have availed of these defaulted defendants by the CA?
 It is an accepted rule of procedure for this Court VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 99
to strive to settle the entire controversy in a single Galicia vs. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo
proceeding, leaving no root 27 or branch to bear the
seeds of future litigation.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
In concurrence therewith, the Court makes the
assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
following observations:
Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to
To dismiss the complaint of herein petitioners for
the effect that the Regional Trial Court of
noninclusion of herein respondents as indispensable
Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82 is ordered to
parties, the former would have no other recourse
GRANT the Motion for Leave to Intervene of
but to file anew a complaint against the latter and
respondents and their other co-heirs, ADMIT their
the original defendants. This would not be in
Answer-in-Intervention, MAINTAIN the Answer of
keeping with the Court’s policy of promoting a just
original defendants, and from there to PROCEED
and inexpensive disposition of a case. It is best that
with Civil Case No. OD-306 in accordance with the
the complaint remains which is deemed amended
Rules of Court.
by the admission of the Answer-in-Intervention of
Costs against petitioners.
the indispensable parties.
SO ORDERED.
The trial court’s declaration of the defendants as
in default in Civil Case No. OD-306 for their failure      Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Callejo, Sr.,
to attend the pretrial conference and the ChicoNazario and Nachura, JJ., concur.
consequent final and executory judgment by
default, are altogether void and of no effect Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution
considering that the RTC acted without jurisdiction affirmed with modification.
from the very beginning because of non-inclusion of
indispensable parties. The Court reiterates the Note.—The absence of an indispensable party
ruling in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company renders all subsequent actuations of the court null
that void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no and void, because of that court’s want of authority
judgment at all; it cannot be the 28source of any right to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as
nor the creator of any obligation. to those present. A person is not an indispensable
Parties are reverted back to the stage where all party if his interest in the controversy of subject
the defendants have filed their respective Answers. matter is separable from the interest of the other
parties so that it will not necessarily be directly or
_______________ injuriously affected by a decree which does complete
justice between them. (Chua vs. Total Office
27 Munsayac-De Villa v. Court of Appeals, 460 Phil. 613, 624; Products and Services [Topros], Inc., 471 SCRA 500
414 SCRA 436, 445 (2003). [2005])
28 Supra note 13, at p. 318; p. 823.
——o0o——
99
 100

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.