In his absence there cannot be a resolution of the

This preview shows page 26 - 28 out of 34 pages.

the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.” Thus, the absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that the failure to implead any indispensable party to a suit does not necessarily result in the outright dismissal of the complaint. In Heirs of Mesina v. Heirs of Fian, Sr., the Court definitively explained that in instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead them and not to dismiss the case. The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. In this case, a judicious review of the records reveals that Cacayuran’s complaint against LBP and the municipal officers primarily prays that the commercialization of the Public Plaza be enjoined and also, that the Subject Loans be declared null and void for having been unlawfully entered into by the said officers. However, Cacayuran failed to implead in his complaint the Municipality, a real party-in-interest and an indispensable party that stands to be directly affected by any judicial resolution on the case, considering that: (a) the contracting parties to the Subject Loans are LBP and the Municipality; and (b) the Municipality owns the Public Plaza as well as the improvements constructed thereon, including the Agoo People’s Center. As the Municipality aptly points out, to recapitulate the case had its beginnings in the two (2) Loans obtained by the Municipality from LBP and by the Board Resolutions passed and adopted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Agoo, La Union, together with the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of the Municipality. MA. ELENA R. DIVINAGRACIA v. CORONACION PARILLA (GR No. 196750, Mar 11, 2015)
FACTS: During his lifetime, Conrado Nobleza , Sr. Contracted two (2) marriages in which he had several children. He also had some illegitimate children. He also owned a 313-square meter parcel of land located in Iloilo City denominated covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T12255. According to Santiago Divinigracia, upon Conrado Nobleza, Sr.’s death, majority of the latter’s heirs sold their respective shares over said property to him for a consideration of Php 447,695.66, as embodied in a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement or Adjudication with Deed of Sale 10 dated November 22, 1989. However, this deed was not signed by the other heirs who did not sell their respective shares (see table below). Thereafter, the same parties executed a

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture