G.R. No.

L-44339

December 2, 1987

CRISANTA F. SENO, CAROLA SENO SANTOS, MANUEL SENO, JR., DIANA SENO
CONDER, EMILY SENO and WALTER SENO, vs. MARCOS MANGUBAT and Spouses
FRANCISCO LUZAME and VERGITA PENAFLOR, ANDRES EVANGELISTA and
BIENVENIDO MANGUBAT,
Facts:
Plaintiff Crisanta Seno agreed to mortgage a parcel of land to Marcos Mangubat for
a sum of P15,000 with interest of 2% a month and that the property will not be
foreclosed as long as the interest is paid monthly. On July 17, 1961, plaintiff agreed
to the execution of a deed of absolute sale over the subject property for a
consideration of P5,000 in favor of Mangubat and certain Andres Evangelista and
Bienvenido Mangubat on the condition that Marcos Mangubat who is a lawyer will
respect the true agreement which is the mortgage. On january8, 1962, Andres and
Bienvenido executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Marcos Mangubat who was
able to obtain a title on the property under his name. In January 1969, plaintiff
learned that Marcos Mangubat sold the subject property in favor of spouses
Francisco and Vergita Luzame for a sum of P10,000. On August 29, 1969, plaintiff
file a complaint seeking the reformation of a deed of sale executed in favor of
Mangubat and annulment of subsequent sale of Mangubat to spouse Luzame. On
motion of spouse Luzame, the trial court ordered on October 20, 1971 the inclusion
of defendants of Andres and Bienvenido on the ground that they are indispensable
parties. On December 29, 1971, plaintiff filed amended complaint in compliance
with the court's order impleading Andres and Bienvenido. The newly impleaded
defendants moved for the dismissal of the complaint on groundof prescription while
defendants spouses Luzame and Mangubat asked the court to dismiss against all
the defendants. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the case. A
motion for reconsideration by plaintiff was denied and an appeal was filed with
Court of Appeals which subsequently certified the case to the SC on purely legal
question.
ISSUE:
whether or not defendants Andres and Bienvenido are indispensable parties in the
case without whom no action can be properly taken thereon.
RULING:
No. Under Sec. 7 Rule 3, indispensable patries must always be joined either as
plaintiff or defendants for the court cannot proceed without them. Necessary parties
must be joined, under Sec. 8, in order to adjudicate the whole controversy and
avoid multiplicity of suits. Indispensable parties are those with such interest in the
controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights, so that the
courts cannot proceed without their presence. Necessary parties are those whose
presence is necessary to adjudicate the whole controversy but whose interest are so
far separable that a final decree can be made in their absence without affecting
them.

In the present case, there are no rights of defendants Andres and Bienvenido to be
safeguarded if the sale should be held to be in fact an absolute sale nor it the sale is
held to be equitable mortgage as they sold their shares in the property. However,
being parties to the instrument being reformed, their presence is necessary.