University of the Philippines College of Law

CJSE D2021
Case Name PASCUAL v. ROBLES
Topic Joinder of Parties (Necessary & Indispensable)
Case No. | Date GR No. 182645 | Dec 15, 2010
Ponente Peralta, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 1989: Henry Rodriguez et al. filed with RTC-Iriga, a petition for Declaration of Heirship and Appointment of
Administrator and Settlement of the Estates of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez and Antonio Rodriguez.
o Henry, Certeza and Rosalina sought that they be declared the sole and surviving heirs of the late
Antonio Rodriguez and Hermogenes Rodriguez, alleging that they were the great-grandchildren of
Antonio; that Hermogenes (a former gobernadorcillo) died in 1910, leaving Antonio as sole heir as
they were allegedly brothers.
 At the initial hearing of the petition, nobody opposed the petition. Having no oppositors to the petition, the
RTC entered a general default against the whole world, except the Republic of the Philippines. After
presentation of proof of compliance with jurisdictional requirements, the RTC allowed Henry, Certeza and
Rosalina to submit evidence before a commissioner in support of the petition. The commissioner found that
Henry, Certeza and Rosalina are the grandchildren in the direct line of Antonio and required them to present
additional evidence to establish the alleged fraternal relationship between Antonio and Hermogenes.
o From this report, the RTC rendered a Partial Judgment dated 31 May 1990 declaring Henry, Certeza
and Rosalina as heirs in the direct descending line of the late Antonio, Macario and Delfin and
appointing Henry as regular administrator of the estate of the decedents Delfin, Macario and Antonio,
and as special administrator to the estate of Hermogenes.
o Henry filed the bond and took his oath of office as administrator of the subject estates.
 Subsequently, six groups of oppositors entered their appearances either as a group or individually.
o Group of Judith Rodriguez: had an opposing claim to the estate of Antonio, while the rest filed
opposing claims to the estate of Hermogenes.
o Jamie Robles: prayed that he be appointed regular administrator to the estates of Antonio and
Hermogenes and be allowed to sell a certain portion of land included in the estate of Hermogenes.
 After hearing, RTC issued an Order declaring him to be an heir and next of kin of decedent
Hermogenes and thus qualified to be the administrator. He was appointed as regular
administrator of the entire estate of Hermogenes and allowed him to sell the property.
o Carola Favila-Santos and her co-heirs: RTC declared them as heirs in the direct descending line of
Hermogenes and reiterated its ruling in the partial judgment declaring Henry, Certeza and Rosalina as
heirs of Antonio.
 The decision dismissed the oppositions of Jamie Robles, Victoria Rodriguez, Bienvenido
Rodriguez, and Florencia Rodriguez, for their failure to substantiate their respective claims of
heirship to the late Hermogenes.
 Aug 13, 1999: Subsequently, the RTC reversed this (found Favila-Santos et al. NOT related to Hermogenes),
and re-affirmed its earlier verdict dismissing the oppositions of Jaime, Victoria, Bienvenido, and Florencia.
Henry, Certeza and Rosalina are the heirs of Hermogenes.
 Robles then appealed by filing a Notice of Appeal, but it was denied by the RTC for Robles’ failure to file a
record on appeal. Robles then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the SC.
o The SC referred the petition to the CA on the ground that the CA has concurrent jurisdiction with the
SC on this matter, and no special and important reason was cited for the SC to take cognizance of the
case in the first instance.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CJSE D2021
 The CA annulled the Aug 13, 1999 RTC decision. Robles filed an appeal with the SC, which the SC denied on
Nov 10, 2005, holding that Robles was not able to perfect the appeal (did not file record on appeal as required
by the Rules); hence, the 13 August 1999 Amended Decision of the RTC lapsed into finality.
 HOWEVER: Pascual filed a Petition for Certiorari on May 10, 2008 which did not implead Robles, where the
SC reversed and reinstated the Aug 13, 1999 decision.
 This Very Urgent MR was then filed by Robles on May 13, 2008.
PASCUAL: ROBLES:
 Robles has no legal standing to participate in the instant  He is a party-in-interest who stands to be
petition. adversely affected or injured or benefited by the
 In an original action for certiorari, the parties are the aggrieved judgment in the instant case.
party against the lower court and the prevailing party.  The failure of service upon him of a copy of the
Petitioner claims, however, that Robles was never impleaded, instant petition as well as petitioner’s
because he was not the prevailing party in the assailed memorandum, and the fact that he was not
Decision of the CA as well as the questioned Order of the RTC. required or given the opportunity to file his
 Further avers that the inclusion of Robles’ name as respondent comment or answer to the said petition nor
in the caption of the instant petition was a result of a clerical served with any order, resolution or any other
error which was probably brought about by numerous cases process issued by this Court in the instant
filed with this Court involving Robles and the subject estate. petition, is a clear denial of his right to due
process.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
WON Robles YES, ROBLES IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY AND HIS NON-INCLUSION RENDERS THE PETITION FOR
is an CERTIORARI DEFECTIVE.
indispensable  Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:
party to the “Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases.—When the petition filed relates to the
petition for acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board,
certiorari, officer or person, the petitioner shall join as private respondent or respondents with such
and hence public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the
should be proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear and
impleades defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or respondents
affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the
petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the judge, court,
quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public
respondent or respondents.
“Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending, the public
respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading
therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public respondents shall
be included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed by
the court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings therein.”
 Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz: “An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without
whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either as
plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence
of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. Thus, without the
presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot
attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CJSE D2021
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.”
 In the case at bar, Robles is an indispensable party. He stands to be injured or benefited
by the outcome of the petition. He has an interest in the controversy that a final decree
would necessarily affect his rights, such that the courts cannot proceed without his
presence.
 Moreover, as provided for under Section 5, Rule 65, Robles is interested in sustaining the
assailed CA Decision, considering that he would benefit from such judgment.

NOTE: THE NON-JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES IS NOT A GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL OF
AN ACTION. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be
added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action
and/or at such times as are just. If petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the
order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the plaintiff’s/petitioner’s
failure to comply therewith.

RULING
Petition partly granted. SC sets aside its decision and allows Robles to file his comment on the petition.