Petitioners, VS.: Respondents

G.R. No.
L-34124 April 30, 1985
MR. & MRS. TADEO P. DAEL, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. BERNARDO TEVES, as Presiding Judge, Court of
First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Branch VIII and DIONISIO EDOROT, VIDAL EDOROT, PONCIANO
EDOROT, PETRA EDOROT, DIOSDADA EDOROT, JUANA EDOROT, and the late HERMINIGILDO EDOROT,
represented by his heirs. VICTOR EDOROT, PEDRITO EDOROT and JACOBO EDOROT, Respondents
Subject Matter: PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTION - RULE 3, SECTIONS 7 TO 12
Action before the SC: Petition for review on certiorari 65
DOCTRINE: Where the Court orders the plaintiff to amend its complaint within a certain period of time
in order to implead as party defendants one who is not a party to the case but who is an indispensable
party, plaintiff's refusal to comply with such order is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint.
Petition for Review on certiorari of the Order of the Hon. respondent Presiding Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Misamis Oriental-Branch VIII, issued on July 27, 1971 in Civil Case No. 3531 entitled "Mr.
& Mrs. Tadeo P. Dael versus Dionisio Edorot, et al", dismissing petitioners' complaint; and his Honor's
order of August 12, 1971 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the said order of
dismissal.chan
FACTS:
Dael spouses filed in CFI-Misamis Oriental a complaint for: "Ownership, Recovery of Possession &
Damages" against the private respondents Edorot.
EDOROT filed Answer with Counterclaim.
The case was set for pre-trial on various occasions to give the parties more chance to arrive at an
amicable settlement (the original Judge was Malvar but he was transferred and TEVES one of
respondents was appointed to take Malvar’s place) the case was set for pre-trial before Judge Teves
who ordered amendment of complaint to include the heirs or representatives of 2 deceased defendants.
Herminigildo and Petra EDOROT filed an Ex- Parte Manifestation, praying that the case be dismissed
pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court for failure of petitioners to file an amended
complaint granted
MR- denied
Hence direct appeal to SC.
ISSUE: WON Respondent Judge abused its discretion in ordering them to file amended complaint to
include the heirs of deceased defendants.
RULLING:
NO.
Petitioner’s here claim that they are owners of the parcel of land in question while respondents also
claim to be the owners and possessors, pro-indiviso by inheritance from their deceased parents, of the
subject litigated parcel. Then, deceased defendants have an undivided interest, right and participation
adverse to that of the petitioners' in the property in litigation. Since both of them are already even prior
to the filing of the complaint against them in the court below and their interest in the property in
question having inured by intestacy to their heirs, the latter thereby became the real parties in interest
who should be impleaded as defendants without whom no final determination of Civil Case can be
had.
Sections 2 and 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides-
Section 2.Parties in interest. —Every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real
party in interest. All persons having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief
demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs. All persons who claim an interest in the controversy or the
subject thereof adverse to the plaintiff, or who are necessary to complete determination or settlement
of the question involved therein shall be joinedas defendants.
Section 7.Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.— Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
In the case of Garchitorena, et al. vs. de los Santos, et al. No.L- 17045, June 30, 1962, 115 Phil. 490, citing
Bautista vs. Teodoro, 54 O.G. 619; Dizon vs. Garcia, et al., G.R. No. L-14690, November 29, 1960 the SC
held that: Where the Court orders the plaintiff to amend its complaint within a certain period of time
in order to implead as party defendants one who is not a party to the case but who is an indispensable
party, plaintiff's refusal to comply with such order is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint.
Therefore, Heirs of deceased defendants are indispensable parties who should be compulsory joined as
defendants in the case and since the petitioners failed to comply with this Order, respondent Judge
acted within his prerogative in dismissing the complaint.

Petitioners, VS.: Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioners, VS.: Respondents

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

Petitioners, VS.: Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-34124 April 30, 1985

Subject Matter: PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTION - RULE 3, SECTIONS 7 TO 12

Action before the SC: Petition for review on certiorari 65

EDOROT filed Answer with Counterclaim.

Hence direct appeal to SC.

Sections 2 and 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides-

You might also like