Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    125.051 Ralla v. Ralla Pascual

    Uploaded by

    James Lou
    Pedro and Pablo were brothers. Pedro was disinherited by their father Rosendo in his will, which left everything to Pablo. Rosendo had also earlier sold part of his property to Pablo. Pedro questioned the validity of the sale. The Supreme Court ruled that Pedro did not have standing to question the sale because he was disinherited and therefore not a real party-in-interest in the case, as he did not stand to be affected by the judgment. The real party-in-interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    125.051 Ralla v. Ralla Pascual

    Uploaded by

    James Lou
    33 views1 page
    Pedro and Pablo were brothers. Pedro was disinherited by their father Rosendo in his will, which left everything to Pablo. Rosendo had also earlier sold part of his property to Pablo. Pedro questioned the validity of the sale. The Supreme Court ruled that Pedro did not have standing to question the sale because he was disinherited and therefore not a real party-in-interest in the case, as he did not stand to be affected by the judgment. The real party-in-interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit.

    Original Description:

    125.053. Navarro v. Escobido Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Pedro and Pablo were brothers. Pedro was disinherited by their father Rosendo in his will, which left everything to Pablo. Rosendo had also earlier sold part of his property to Pablo. Pedro questioned the validity of the sale. The Supreme Court ruled that Pedro did not have standing to question the sale because he was disinherited and therefore not a real party-in-interest in the case, as he did not stand to be affected by the judgment. The real party-in-interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    33 views1 page

    125.051 Ralla v. Ralla Pascual

    Uploaded by

    James Lou
    Pedro and Pablo were brothers. Pedro was disinherited by their father Rosendo in his will, which left everything to Pablo. Rosendo had also earlier sold part of his property to Pablo. Pedro questioned the validity of the sale. The Supreme Court ruled that Pedro did not have standing to question the sale because he was disinherited and therefore not a real party-in-interest in the case, as he did not stand to be affected by the judgment. The real party-in-interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Criminal Law 2

    Martin Alfonso Pascual D2025 Niel Anthony Borja

    Case Name Ralla v. Ralla

    Topic Real Parties-in-Interest

    Case No. | Date G.R. No. 78646. July 23, 1991

    Ponente Cruz
    Pedro and Pablo are brothers. Pedro was disinherited by his father, and instead the
    father sold a part of his property to Pablo. Pedro questioned the validity of the sale. SC
    Case Summary
    said that Pedro has no standing due to his disinheritance, therefore he is not a real
    party-in-interest.
    The real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
    judgment or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. "Interest" within the meaning of
    Doctrine the rule means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree,
    as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental
    interest.

    RELEVANT FACTS
    1. Pedro and Pablo Ralla are brothers. Their father is Rosendo Ralla.
    2. Rosendo executed a will while he was still alive, disinheriting Pedro and leaving everything he owned to
    Pablo, to who he said he had earlier sold a part of his property for P10k.
    3. In the intestate proceedings, Pedro’s disinheritance was disapproved by the trial court..
    a. the CA reversed the disapproval, and the MR was denied with finality.
    b. The grounds for disinheritance was met after finding that the requisites of a valid disinheritance
    was complied with in the will (Pedro threatened to kill his father, who was afraid of his and had
    earlier sued him for slander and grave oral defamation)
    4. Pedro filed a complaint to annul the transaction between Rosendo and Pablo on the ground that it was
    simulated.
    5. Trial court declared the sale null and void
    6. Resolution of the MR reversed the decision and held the sale to be valid.
    7. CA reinstated the trial court’s original decision

    ISSUE RATIO
    No.

    As a general rule, one having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the
    Whether the decision of jurisdiction of the court as a party-plaintiff in an action.
    the trial court declaring
    the sale null and void is In this case, the decision of the court in the disinheritance of Pedro has long since
    correct become final. Since then, Pedro Ralla no longer had the legal standing to
    question the validity of the sale executed by Rosendo in favor of his other son
    Pablo.

    RULING
    WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent court dated January 23, 1987, is
    set aside and another judgment is hereby rendered dismissing Civil Case 194
    (originally Civil Case 4624) in the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, Branch 5.
    SO ORDERED.
    Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ ., concur.

    You might also like