DATE: October 5, 2015

SUBJ: Heirs; Standing to Sue; Indispensable Parties

This letter responds to your concern as to whether or not one of the heirs of the decedent
may file an action for Declaration of Nullity of a Deed of Absolute Sale that was purportedly
executed between the decedent and a third party.
This memorandum first discusses the rule on actions in general and then proceeds to
discuss the rules applicable to the facts involved in this case.

Table of Contents
Who may file an action?

May the heirs be the real parties-in-interest of an action pertaining to the estate of
the decedent?
1
In filing an action related to defending or protecting property of the estate, must all
the heirs be impleaded as plaintiffs?
2
How can one heir represent the other heirs in filing an action?

Who may file an action?

A real party-in-interest may file an action1. A real party-in-interest is defined as the party
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit. In Dagadag v. Tongnawa2, the Supreme Court applied the rule that a suit must
be brought in the name of the real party-in-interest. In other words, the complainant or plaintiff
must be the real party-in-interest. If there are two or more real parties-in-interest, all of them
must bring the case together or if they did not do so initially, the others must be impleaded before
the case has been finally determined.
May the heirs be the real parties-in-interest of an action pertaining to the estate of the
decedent?
It depends. Under the Rules of Court, the general rule is that the executor or administrator
should file actions on behalf of the estate 3. However, jurisprudence has allowed some exceptions
by liberally construing the rules in favor of the heirs because of Article 777 of the Civil Code,
which states that: the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent. Thus, if no executor or administrator has been appointed, or while letters of
administration are pending, or in case of bad faith by the executor or administrator, the Supreme
Court has on occasion recognized the standing to sue of heirs.
1 Section 2, Rule 3, Rules of Court.
2 G.R. Nos. 161166-67, February 3, 2005.
3 Section 2, Rule 87, Rules of Court.
Page 1 of 3

In Emnace v. Court of Appeals4, where no administrator had yet been appointed, the
Supreme Court held that a surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as executrix or
administratrix of the estate before she can file an action. She and her children are complainants
in their own right as successors of [the decedent].
In filing an action related to defending or protecting property of the estate, must all the
heirs be impleaded as plaintiffs?
Yes. In Speed Distributing Corp. v. Court of Appeals 5, the complainant sought the nullification
of a Deed of Absolute Sale, as the surviving spouse and as one of the compulsory heirs of the
decedent. While the Supreme Court cited Emnace v. Court of Appeals 6 to affirm the
complainants right to sue as one of the decedents heirs, it held that all of the compulsory heirs
of the decedent are indispensable parties to such case and must be impleaded therein.
Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that parties-in-interest without whom on final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. Thus, the
rule on joining indispensable parties to an action applies to plaintiffs as well as defendants.
In Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 7, the Supreme Court held that no
final determination of a case shall be had if there has been a failure to implead all the
indispensable parties to an action.
However, non-joinder of indispensable parties to an action is curable.
In Macababbad, Jr. v. Masirag8, the Supreme Court held that the Regional Trial Court
had erroneously dismissed the case on the ground of non-joinder of indispensable parties. The
Supreme Court applied Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which states: [] neither
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be
dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any
stage of the action and on such terms as are just []
In other words, had A filed a case against B without impleading co-heir C, an
indispensable party, such defect alone is not a ground for dismissal under Section 11, Rule 3 of
the Rules of Court. The Court will allow A to implead C, as a party-plaintiff, while the case is
still pending. However, pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the Court will not
make a final determination until C has been impleaded.
How can one heir represent the other heirs in filing an action?
The other heirs may deliver a power of attorney in favor of one of them. In this case, a special
power of attorney9 is necessary in order to grant one of the heirs the authority to represent all of
the other heirs in this specific action.

4 G.R. No. 126334, November 23, 2001.

5 G.R. No. 149351, March 17, 2004.
6 G.R. No. 126334, November 23, 2001.
7 G.R. No. 103301, December 8, 1995.
8 G.R. No. 161237, January 14, 2009.
9 Article 1876, Civil Code.
Page 2 of 3

The Rules of Court allows representatives to prosecute or defend actions on behalf of a

beneficiary, who shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real
party-in-interest.10

10 Section 3, Rule 3, Rules of Court.

Page 3 of 3