Marmo v. Anacay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Moises O. Anacay, along with his now deceased wife, co-owned a parcel of land and the house thereon. They authorized petitioner Josephine Marmo to sell the property. Petitioner Marmo subsequently sold the property to petitioner Danilo del Pilar for P520,000.00, with installment payments due from May 2001 to June 2006. Petitioner del Pilar allegedly defaulted on payments starting December 2002. Respondent Anacay discovered that the title to the property had been transferred to petitioner Marmo via a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale, and then subsequently transferred to petitioner del Pilar. Respondent Anacay filed a case for Annulment of Sale, Recovery of Title with Damages. Procedural History: Respondent Moises O. Anacay filed a complaint for Annulment of Sale, Recovery of Title with Damages against the petitioners and the Register of Deeds. The petitioners, in their respective Answers, argued that respondent's children, as co-owners, were indispensable parties who had not been joined. Following the pre-trial conference, the petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss based on this alleged failure to implead indispensable parties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied this motion, finding the respondent's argument that his children were not indispensable parties to be well-taken. After the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition, agreeing that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that the respondent's children were not indispensable parties. The petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. They contend that the respondent's children, as co-owners, are indispensable parties whose non-joinder is a fatal jurisdictional defect, citing several Supreme Court cases. They argue that a full determination of the case cannot be made without their presence. The respondent counters that his children are not indispensable parties because the core issue of falsification of signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale can be resolved without their participation, as they were not signatories to the document and their co-ownership rights are adequately represented by the respondent. The Supreme Court is asked to determine if the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's children are indispensable parties in Civil Case No. 2919-03. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
Ruling
The petition is denied for failure to show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of indispensable parties: The Court held that the respondent's children are not indispensable parties. Section 7, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as those without whom there can be no final determination of an action. Jurisprudence requires that a party's interest must be such that a final decree cannot be made without affecting it or placing the controversy in a situation inconsistent with equity and good conscience. In cases involving property held in common, Article 487 of the Civil Code provides that any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment, which has been interpreted to include actions for recovery of possession and ownership. The Court has consistently upheld the right of a co-owner to file suit without impleading other co-owners when the suit is brought for the benefit of all, as when the co-ownership is not repudiated. In this case, the respondent recognized the co-ownership and did not claim sole ownership. The core issue of falsification of signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale is personal to the respondent and his wife and does not require the participation of their children, as their signatures do not appear on the document. The children's rights as co-owners are adequately protected by the respondent, as the complaint aims to recover ownership and possession for the benefit of all co-owners. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated the general rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order and not subject to appeal or certiorari. Certiorari is only appropriate when the RTC acts outside or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and appeal would not afford adequate relief. In this case, the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion because the respondent's children were correctly determined not to be indispensable parties. Therefore, the CA did not err in affirming the RTC's order.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner may bring an action for recovery of ownership and possession of property held in common without impleading the other co-owners, as such suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of all co-owners, provided the co-ownership is not repudiated and the suit does not affect the rights of other co-owners.