Regner v. Logarta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Luis Regner, married to Victoria Regner (petitioner), had three daughters with his first wife: Cynthia Logarta and Teresa Tormis (respondents), and Melinda Regner-Borja. During his marriage to Victoria, Luis acquired a share in the Cebu Country Club, Inc. On May 15, 1998, Luis executed a Deed of Donation in favor of his daughters, Cynthia and Teresa, for this membership share. Luis passed away on February 11, 1999. Victoria Regner subsequently filed a complaint alleging that Luis was not of sound mind when he executed the deed and that Cynthia and Teresa, with Melinda's assistance, fraudulently procured his thumbmark on the document. Procedural History: Victoria Regner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Donation against Cynthia and Teresa with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB 23927. Summonses were initially served on their sister, Melinda, who refused to receive them. Teresa was eventually served a summons on June 1, 2000, and filed an Answer. However, Cynthia, an indispensable party, was never served summons. Teresa filed a motion to dismiss, arguing failure to prosecute due to the lack of service on Cynthia. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. Victoria's motion for reconsideration was denied. She appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's dismissal, citing Victoria's failure to move for extraterritorial service of summons as a failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time. The Petition: This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision. The petitioner argues that the delay in serving summons on one co-defendant does not constitute a failure to prosecute when other co-defendants were duly served, and that an answer filed by one defendant should benefit the others, especially given the common nature of the action. The core issues presented are whether a co-donee is an indispensable party and whether delay in serving summons on one defendant warrants dismissal for failure to prosecute. The petitioner contends that the CA erred in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, asserting that the action was in personam and that proper steps for service of summons on the non-resident defendant were not taken, leading to the dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether a co-donee is an indispensable party in an action to declare the nullity of a deed of donation. Whether delay in the service of summons upon one of the defendants constitutes failure to prosecute that would warrant dismissal of the complaint.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether a co-donee is an indispensable party: Yes, a co-donee is an indispensable party in an action to declare the nullity of a deed of donation. Indispensable parties are those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights, and the court cannot proceed without their presence. In this case, Cynthia and Teresa are co-owners of the Cebu Country Club membership certificate by virtue of the deed of donation. The petitioner's complaint sought to nullify this donation, which would directly affect their ownership rights. Therefore, without Cynthia, who was not served summons, the court could not make a final adjudication on the validity of the entire donation, as her interest is inextricably intertwined with Teresa's and the subject matter of the suit. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act. On whether delay in service of summons constitutes failure to prosecute: Yes, the delay in serving summons on an indispensable party, coupled with the petitioner's failure to take diligent steps to effect service, constitutes failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time. The action filed was an action in personam, requiring personal service of summons. Since Cynthia was a non-resident, service should have been made extraterritorially by leave of court, either by personal service abroad, by publication, or by any other manner the court deems sufficient. The petitioner's failure to move for such service, despite knowing Cynthia's foreign residence and the refusal of summons by her sister, and the lapse of approximately fifteen months from filing the complaint until Teresa's motion to dismiss, demonstrated a lack of due diligence. This failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, as provided under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, warrants the dismissal of the complaint. The petitioner cannot simply rely on the clerk of court's duty to serve summons and must actively pursue the case.
Main Doctrine
A co-donee is an indispensable party in an action to declare the nullity of a deed of donation. Failure to serve summons on an indispensable party, despite the lapse of an unreasonable length of time, constitutes failure to prosecute and warrants the dismissal of the complaint.