Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. (now known as Banco De Oro-EPCI, Inc.) vs.

Heirs of Antonio Tiu,


namely: Arlene T. Fu, Michael U. Tiu, Andrew U. Tiu, Edgar U. Tiu and Erwin U. Tiu
G.R. No.178529, September 4, 2009 // Carpio Morales, J:
Provision on parties in interest of the Rules of Court
FACTS:
In 1994, Antonio Tiu (deceased), father of herein respondents, executed a REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
in favor of petitioner covering a lot (registered in his name) located in Tacloban City in order to secure
the indebtedness of one Gabriel Ching. 4 years thereafter, Antonio executed an Amendment to the Real
Estate Mortgage (AREM) increasing the amount secured by the mortgage. Said mortgage as well as its
amendment bore the signature of Antonios wife, Matilde, above the words With my Marital Consent.
Since the loan obligation remained unsettled, petitioner (Equitable PCI Bank, now known as Banco de
Oro-EPCI, Inc.) filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City a Petition for Sale for
the extrajudicial foreclosure of the AREM and the sale at public auction of the lot covered thereby. The
same was granted by the RTC Clerk of Court. However, the public auction sale did not push through as
scheduled because of the TRO issued by the RTC after the respondents (children of Antonio) filed a
Complaint for the annulment of the AREM with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO and writ of
preliminary injunction and damages. They alleged, among others, that the AREM is null and void because
it did not bear the signature of their mother, who, according to them, was then already suffering from
Alzheimers disease.
In response to said Complaint, the petitioner filed a MOTION TO DISMISS, arguing among others that
1) the complaint states no cause of action because respondents are not the real parties in interest; 2) the
cause of action has already prescribed; 3) the venue is improperly laid. The RTC, however, denied the
motion, stating that respondents are real parties in interest because they stand to be benefited or injured
by the action as their inheritance (as heirs of the deceased) is at stake. Hence, the petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the CA which was again denied. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint for the annulment of the AREM filed by respondents-children of
Antonio states a cause of action notwithstanding the fact that their mother, Matilde (who was principally
obliged under the AREM) was not impleaded.
HELD: The petition for certiorari was GRANTED by the SC. The Court held that it is Matilde,
Antonios wife, and NOT HER CHILDREN, who should have filed the instant suit.
Settled is the rule that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest (Sec. 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court). In annulment of contracts, Art. 1397 of the Civil Code
provides that the suit may be instituted by all who are thereby obliged principally or subsidiarily xxx.
In the case at bar, the AREM was executed by Antonio, with the marital consent of Matilde. Since the
mortgaged property is presumed conjugal, she is the one obliged principally under the AREM. It is thus
she, following Art. 1397 of the Civil Code vis a vis Sec. 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, who is the real

party in interest, hence, the action must be prosecuted in her name as she stands to be benefited or injured
in the action.
Assuming that Matilde is indeed incapacitated, it is her legal guardian who should file the action on her
behalf. Not only is there no allegation in the complaint, that respondents have been legally designated as
guardians to file the action on her behalf, the name of Matilde (who is deemed the real party in interest)
was likewise not included in the title of the case, in violation of Sec. 3 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen