Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Metropolitan Bank v. Alejo o thus, it should have been impleaded as a defendant in the Case of Dec.

of
G.R. No. 141970 Nullity [second case]
September 10, 2001  DEFINITION OF INDISPENSAABLE PARTY
o “a party who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter
Doctrine: that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring
 Relative to a motion for relief on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable or affecting that interest”
negligence—Rule 38 of the Rules of Court only applies when the one deprived of his right is a o “a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the
party to the case parties already before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable”
 The absence of indispensable parties renders all subsequent actuations of the court null and o “one who must be included in an action before it may properly go forward”
void o NOT an INDISPENSABLE PARTY
 if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from
the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be
Facts: directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete
 In a SUIT is to NULLIFY the TCT in which a REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE is annotated, the justice between them
MORTGAGEE is an INDISPENSABLE PARTY  JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES [Sec. 7, Rule 3]
o the non-joinder of the mortgagee deprived the court of jurisdiction to pass o “SEC. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.—Parties in interest
upon the controversy without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be
joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.”
 In 1995, Sps Acampado obtained loans from Metrobank[P5 and P2 million] o AIM and INENT OF THE RULES on JOINDER
o Acampados executed a REM over a parcel of land  is a complete determination of all possible issues, not only between
o Land was covered by TCT in RD of Valenzuela the parties themselves but also as regards to other persons who may
 a COMPLAINT of Declaration of Nullity of TCT [second case]was filed by respondent Sy be affected by the judgment
Tan Se  . A valid judgment cannot even be rendered where there is want of
o Despite being the Registered Mortgagee, METROBANK was NOT MADE a indispensable parties
PARTY, NOR NOTIFIED  THUS, it is clear that the presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the
 Sps Acampado defaulted in the payment of lia court with jurisdiction, which is “the authority to hear and determine a cause, the
o Extrajudicial foreclosure was made right to act in a case
o During the auction sale, Metrobank was the highest bidder o Must be noted: the absence of indispensable parties renders all subsequent
 Sale was entered in RD actuations of the court null and void
 Redemption period LAPSED thus Metrobank executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of  Because of the court’s want of authority to act
Ownership  not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
o Upon presentation of the Affidavit, METROBANK WAS INFORMED of the present
EXISTENCE of the nullity of TCT case  IN THIS CASE, the disregard of the annotations in the TCT constituted a deprovation of
 Wherein the RTC declared the TCT in the name of Acampado as null private property without due process
and void o Thus unjust and iniquitous
 Metrobank filed before the CA a petition for annulment of RTC decision o Clearly, it was the trial court’s duty to order petitioner’s inclusion as a party to
o CA: Dismissed nullity case
 This was not done. Neither the court nor private respondents
Issue: WON there is lack of jurisdiction. [] bothered to implead petitioner as a party to the case.
 In the absence of petitioner, an indispensable party, the trial
Held: court had no authority to act on the case.
 It was undisputed that he property was mortgaged, and the mortgaged was annotated  Its judgment therein was null and void due to lack of
o the foreclosure of mortgaged was entered in the RD jurisdiction over an indispensable party
o the cancellation of the TCT
 The cancellation of the TCT and the mortgage annotation exposed petitioner to real
prejudice, because its rights over the mortgaged property would no longer be known and
respected by third parties
o Necessarily, therefore, the nullification of TCT
 adversely affected its property rights, considering that a real
mortgage is a real right and a real property by itself
 Evidently, METROBANK is ENCOMPASSED within the DEFINITION of an INDISPENSABLE
PARTY