digests jara rules 1-3

7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 1/23

G.R. No. L-29155 November 5, 1928

JOSEFINA RUBIO DE LARENA, vs. HERENEGILDO

!ILLANUE!A, OS"RAND, J.:

In G. R. No. 21706, the Court of First Instance ordered the

rescission of a lease of the Tacgajan ugar !leantation and the

"a#$ent %# &illanue'a of the un"aid %alance of the rent (ith

interest. The decision also "ro'ided that the "ossession of the

leased land %e deli'ered to )arena. %efore le'# (as $ade the

"arties ca$e to an agree$ent, under (hich the $one#

judg$ent (as to %e satisfied %# the "a#$ent of !10,*00 in cash

and the transfer to )arena of a d(elling house. The agree$ent

(as carried out in accordance (ith its ter$s.

In the $eanti$e, &illanue'a had har'ested the sugarcane

cro" "roduced, and after ha'ing satisfied the aforesaid $one#

judg$ent, he also continued in "ossession of the "lantation

long enough to a""ro"riate to hi$self the follo(ing ratoon

cane cro".

+e )arena filed an action (herein she alleged that (hile

first case (as on a""eal to the u"re$e Court, &illanue'a

ne( "ositi'el# that the aforesaid lease (as declared rescinded

%# the Court of First Instance and that &illanue'a, also ne(

that he thereafter (as not entitled to the "ossession of the

aforesaid hacienda- that he, ne'ertheless, in %ad faith continued

in such "ossession during the agricultural #ear 122/12 and

a""ro"riated to hi$self the cane har'est for that #ear.

In his ans(er &illanue'a alleges that according to the

"leadings in case G. R. No. 21706, the t(o causes of action

(ere included in that case and, therefore, $ust %e considered

res judicata.

I3 45N this case in'ol'ed the doctrine of res judicata

)+3 No.

!ro"erl# s"eaing, this argu$ent does not in'ol'e the

doctrine of res judicata %ut rests on the (ell/no(n and fir$l#

esta%lished "rinci"le that a "art# (ill not %e "er$itted to s"lit

u" a single cause of action and $ae it the %asis for se'eral

suits. 8ut that is not this case. The rule is (ell esta%lished that(hen a lease "ro'ides for the "a#$ent of the rent in se"arate

install$ents, each install$ent is an inde"endent cause of

action, though it has %een held and is good la(, that in an

action u"on such a lease for the reco'er# of rent, the

install$ents due at the ti$e the action %rought $ust %e

included in the co$"laint and that failure to do so (ill

constitute a %ar to a su%se9uent action for the "a#$ent of that

rent. The aforesaid action, G. R. No. 21706, (as %rought on

:ugust 2;, 122, )arena de$anding "a#$ent of then sue rent

in addition to the rescission of the lease. In 12;, )arena

a$ended the "ra#er of the co$"laint %# asing judg$ent for

rent for #ears su%se9uent to 122. The lease did not "ro'ide for

"a#$ent of rent in ad'ance or at an# definite ti$e, and it

a""ears that the rent for an agricultural #ear (as not considered

due until the end of the corres"onding #ear. It follo(s that the



rent for the agricultural #ear 122/12 has not %eco$e due at

the ti$e of the trial of the case and that conse9uentl# the trial

court could not render judg$ent therefore. The action referred

to is, therefore, no %ar to the first cause of action in the "resent

litigation.

BLOSSO # $O. !. ANILA GAS $OR%ORA"IONS

Facts3

< 8losso$ = Co. >"laintiff? and @anila Gas Cor"orations

>defendant? entered into a contract. The contract "ro'ided for

the deli'er# to the "laintiff fro$ $onth to $onth of s"ecified

a$ounts of (ater gas tar. 1 ton of gas (as "riced at !h"6*. It(as agreed that the "rice (ould "re'ail onl# so long as the ra(

$aterials >coal and crude oil? used %# the defendants in the

$anufacture of gas should cost the sa$e "rice as that

"re'ailing at the ti$e of the contract. In the e'ent of an

increase or decrease in the cost of ra( $aterials, there (ould

%e a corres"onding increase or decrease in the "rice of tar.

< The contract (as later a$ended to eAtend the "eriod for ten

#ears. In consideration of the $odification, the "laintiff agreed

to "urchase fro$ the defendant a certain "iece of land l#ing

adjacent to its "lant. The defendant sold and con'e#ed the land

to the "laintiff (hich in turn eAecuted a $ortgage to secure the

"a#$ent of the %alance of the "urchase "rice.

< :round #ears fro$ the eAecution of the contract, "laintiff

filed an action against the defendant to o%tain s"ecific

"erfor$ance and reco'er# of da$ages. !laintiff alleged that the

defendant %reached the contract %# ceasing to deli'er an# coal

and (ater gas tar solel# %ecause of the increase in "rice of tar

"roducts and its desire to secure %etter "rices than (hat the

"laintiff "aid.

< CFI @anila ruled in fa'or of the "laintiff. The court granted

the reco'er# for da$ages %ut refused to order the defendants to

resu$e deli'er# %ut left it (ith its re$ed# for da$ages against

the defendants for an# su%se9uent %reach of contract.

< )ater, "laintiff filed another action for da$ages on the ground

that the defendant %reached the contract once $ore after refusal

to "erfor$ its o%ligation under the sa$e contract.

Issue3 4hether or not the "laintiff is %arred fro$ filing the

second action for da$ages

Ruling3 Bes, the "laintiff is %arred fro$ filing the second action

for da$ages.

+octrine

• Divisible contracts (as a general rule)

/ : contract to do se'eral things at se'eral ti$es isdi'isi%le. : judge$ent for a single %reach of a

continuing contract is not a %ar to a suit for a

su%se9uent %reach.

• Entire contract (case at bar)



/ 4hen the contract is indi'isi%le and the %reach is

total, there can onl# %e one action in (hich the "laintiff

$ust reco'er all da$ages. The reco'er# of a judge$ent

for da$ages %# reason of a %reach is a %ar to another

action on the sa$e contract and on account of the

continuous %reach.

/ The contract %et(een the "arties is an entire contract.

/ In the case at %ar, the defendant ter$inated the

continuing contract %# a%solute refusal. The clai$ for

da$ages is an indi'isi%le de$and. 4here a for$er final

judge$ent (as rendered, it is a %ar to an# da$ages

(hich "laintiff $a# thereafter sustain.

S&'(m') vs $A

Facts3 o$eti$e in 16 and 17, (ag$an through :tt#.

Infante and egert#, its "resident and 'ice/"resident,

res"ecti'el#, o%tained fro$ Christian loans e'idenced %# three

"ro$issor# notes dated 7 :ugust 16, 1 @arch 17, and 1

ul# 17. ach of the "ro$issor# notes is in the a$ount of D*0,000 "a#a%le after three #ears fro$ its date (ith an

interest of 1*E "er annu$ "a#a%le e'er# three $onths. In a

letter dated 16 +ece$%er 1, Christian infor$ed the

"etitioner cor"oration that he (as ter$inating the loans and

de$anded fro$ the latter "a#$ent of said loans.

5n 2 Fe%ruar# 1, Christian filed (ith the RTC a co$"laint

for a su$ of $one# and da$ages against the "etitioner

cor"oration, egert#, and :tt#. Infante.

The "etitioner cor"oration, together (ith its "resident and 'ice/

"resident, filed an :ns(er raising as defenses lac of cause of

action. :ccording to the$, Christian had no cause of action

%ecause the three "ro$issor# notes (ere not #et due and

de$anda%le.

The trial court ruled that under ection * of Rule 10 of the

17 Rules of Ci'il !rocedure, a co$"laint (hich states no

cause of action $a# %e cured %# e'idence "resented (ithout

o%jection. Thus, e'en if the "laintiff had no cause of action at

the ti$e he filed the instant co$"laint, as defendants

o%ligation are not #et due and de$anda%le then, he $a#

ne'ertheless reco'er on the first t(o "ro$issor# notes in 'ie(

of the introduction of e'idence sho(ing that the o%ligations

co'ered %# the t(o "ro$issor# notes are no( due and

de$anda%le. 4hen the instant case (as filed on Fe%ruar# 2,

1, none of the "ro$issor# notes (as due and de$anda%le,

%ut , the first and the second "ro$issor# notes ha'e alread#

$atured during the course of the "roceeding. ence, "a#$entis alread# due.

This finding (as affir$ed in toto %# the C:.

Issue3 4hether or not a co$"laint that lacs a cause of action

at the ti$e it (as filed %e cured %# the accrual of a cause of

action during the "endenc# of the case.



eld3 No. Cause of action, as defined in ection 2, Rule 2 of

the 17 Rules of Ci'il !rocedure, is the act or o$ission %#

(hich a "art# 'iolates the right of another. Its essential

ele$ents are as follo(s3

1. : right in fa'or of the "laintiff %# (hate'er $eans and under

(hate'er la( it arises or is created-

2. :n o%ligation on the "art of the na$ed defendant to res"ect

or not to 'iolate such right- and

;. :ct or o$ission on the "art of such defendant in 'iolation of

the right of the "laintiff or constituting a %reach of the

o%ligation of the defendant to the "laintiff for (hich the latter

$a# $aintain an action for reco'er# of da$ages or other

a""ro"riate relief.

It is, thus, onl# u"on the occurrence of the last ele$ent that a

cause of action arises, gi'ing the "laintiff the right to $aintain

an action in court for reco'er# of da$ages or other a""ro"riate

relief.

uch inter"retation %# the trial court and C: of ection *, Rule

10 of the 17 Rules of Ci'il !rocedure is erroneous. The

curing effect under ection * is a""lica%le onl# if a cause of

action in fact eAists at the ti$e the co$"laint is filed, %ut the

co$"laint is defecti'e for failure to allege the essential

facts.:$end$ents of "leadings are allo(ed under Rule 10 of

the 17 Rules of Ci'il !rocedure in order that the actual

$erits of a case $a# %e deter$ined in the $ost eA"editious and

ineA"ensi'e $anner (ithout regard to technicalities, and that

all other $atters included in the case $a# %e deter$ined in a

single "roceeding, there%# a'oiding $ulti"licit# of suits.

*G.R. No. 182+5. A(s 1, 2/12.0

LILIA B. ADA, e '., vs. FLORAN"E BALON

F:CT3

This case in'ol'es the estate of s"ouses Florentino 8a#lon and

@aAi$ina lnas 8a#lon >"ouses 8a#lon? (ho died on

No'e$%er 7, 161 and @a# *, 17, res"ecti'el#. ; :t the

ti$e of their death, "ouses 8a#lon (ere sur'i'ed %# their

legiti$ate children, na$el#, Rita 8a#lon >Rita?, &ictoria

8a#lon >&ictoria?, +olores 8a#lon >+olores?, !anfila Go$eH

>!anfila?, Ra$on 8a#lon >Ra$on? and herein "etitioner )ilia

8. :da >)ilia?.

+olores died intestate and (ithout issue on :ugust , 176.

&ictoria died on No'e$%er 11, 11 and (as sur'i'ed %# her

daughter, herein "etitioner )uH 8. :danHa. Ra$on diedintestate on ul# , 1 and (as sur'i'ed %# herein

res"ondent Florante 8a#lon >Florante?, his child fro$ his first

$arriage, as (ell as %# "etitioner Flora 8a#lon, his second

(ife, and their legiti$ate children, na$el#, Ra$on, r. and

herein "etitioners Re$o, ose, ric, Florentino and @a. Ru%#,

all surna$ed 8a#lon.

http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/56098?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=56098&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=182435&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0




Florentino +Maxima

Rita Victoria

Luz

Dolores

Panfla Ramon

+ Flora

Ramon Jr

Remo, Jose,Eric,

Florentino,Ma. Ruby

Florante

Lilia

!etitioners filed (ith the RTC co$"laint for "artition,

accounting, and da$ages against res"ondent Florante, Rita, and!anfila. The# alleged that "ouses 8a#lon o(ned ; "arcels of

land. The# clai$ed that Rita too "ossession of the land and

a""ro"riated the inco$e deri'ed therefro$. Florante, Rita and

!anfila asserted, in their ans(er, that the co/o(ned the

"ro"erties in 9uestion. 5n ul# 17, Rita donated a "arcel of

land to Florante. In ul# 2000, Rita died. !etitioners learned of

the donation $ade %# Rita in fa'or of Florante. The# filed for a

u""le$ental !leading, asing the court to rescind the +eed of

+onation.

The RTC rendered a decision, finding the eAistence of co/

o(nershi" %ut ordered the "artition of the estate of the "ouses

8a#lon. RTC also rescinded the donation $ade.

The case (as a""ealed to the C:. The a""ellate court set aside

the decision and re$anded the case to deter$ine o(nershi" of

)ot Nos. 706 and 70.

The co$"laint filed %# the "etitioners (ith the RTC in'ol'es

t(o se"arate, distinct and inde"endent actions "artition and

rescission. First, the "etitioners raised the refusal of their co/heirs, Florante, Rita and !anfila, to "artition the "ro"erties

(hich the# inherited fro$ "ouses 8a#lon. Second, in their

su""le$ental "leading, the "etitioners assailed the

donation inter vivos of )ot No. 70 and half of )ot No. 706

$ade %# Rita in fa'or of Florante pendente lite.

IJ3 4JN

R)ING3

8# a joinder of actions, or $ore "ro"erl#, a joinder of causes of

action is $eant the uniting of t(o or $ore de$ands or rights of

action in one action, the state$ent of $ore than one cause of

action in a declaration. It is the union of t(o or $ore ci'il

causes of action, each of (hich could %e $ade the %asis of a

se"arate suit, in the sa$e co$"laint, declaration or "etition. :

"laintiff $a# under certain circu$stances join se'eral distinctde$ands, contro'ersies or rights of action in one declaration,

co$"laint or "etition. 2

4hile "arties to an action $a# assert in one "leading, in the

alternati'e or other(ise, as $an# causes of action as the# $a#

ha'e against an o""osing "art#, such joinder of causes of action





is su%ject to the condition, inter alia, that the joinder shall not

include s"ecial ci'il actions go'erned %# s"ecial rules. ;1

ere, there (as a $isjoinder of causes of action. The action for

"artition filed %# the "etitioners could not %e joined (ith theaction for the rescission of the said donation inter vivos in

fa'or of Florante. )est it %e o'erlooed, an action for "artition

is a s"ecial ci'il action go'erned %# Rule 6 of the Rules of

Court (hile an action for rescission is an ordinar# ci'il action

go'erned %# the ordinar# rules of ci'il "rocedure. The 'ariance

in the "rocedure in the s"ecial ci'il action of "artition and in

the ordinar# ci'il action of rescission "recludes their joinder in

one co$"laint or their %eing tried in a single "roceeding to

a'oid confusion in deter$ining (hat rules shall go'ern theconduct of the "roceedings as (ell as in the deter$ination of

the "resence of re9uisite ele$ents of each "articular cause of

action. ;2

Ne'ertheless, $isjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for

dis$issal. Indeed, the courts ha'e the "o(er, acting u"on the

$otion of a "art# to the case or sua sponte, to order the

se'erance of the $isjoined cause of action to %e "roceeded

(ith se"aratel#. ;; o(e'er, if there is no o%jection to the

i$"ro"er joinder or the court did not motu proprio direct a

se'erance, then there eAists no %ar in the si$ultaneous

adjudication of all the erroneousl# joined causes of action.

It should %e e$"hasiHed that the foregoing rule onl# a""lies if

the court tr#ing the case has jurisdiction o'er all of the causes

of action therein not(ithstanding the $isjoinder of the sa$e. If

the court tr#ing the case has no jurisdiction o'er a $isjoined

cause of action, then such $isjoined cause of action has to %e

se'ered fro$ the other causes of action, and if not so se'ered,

an# adjudication rendered %# the court (ith res"ect to the sa$e

(ould %e a nullit#.

ere, Florante "osed no o%jection, and neither did the RTC

direct the se'erance of the "etitionersK action for rescission

fro$ their action for "artition. 4hile this $a# %e a "atent

o$ission on the "art of the RTC, this does not constitute a

ground to assail the 'alidit# and correctness of its decision. The

RTC 'alidl# adjudicated the issues raised in the actions for

"artition and rescission filed %# the "etitioners.

:sserting a Ne( Cause of :ction in a u""le$ental

!leading

ection 6, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court reads3

ec. 6.Supplemental Pleadings. "on

$otion of a "art# the court $a#, u"on

reasona%le notice and u"on such ter$s as are

just, "er$it hi$ to ser'e a su""le$ental

"leading setting forth transactions,

occurrences or e'ents (hich ha'e ha""ened

since the date of the "leading sought to %e

su""le$ented. The ad'erse "art# $a# "lead

thereto (ithin ten >10? da#s fro$ notice of the

order ad$itting the su""le$ental "leading.

In Young v. Spouses Sy, ;6 this Court had the o""ortunit# to

elucidate on the "ur"ose of a su""le$ental "leading. Thus3











:s its 'er# na$e denotes, a su""le$ental

"leading onl# ser'es to %olster or add

so$ething to the "ri$ar# "leading. :

su""le$ent eAists side %# side (ith the

original. It does not re"lace that (hich it

su""le$ents. @oreo'er, a su""le$ental

"leading assu$es that the original "leading is

to stand and that the issues joined (ith the

original "leading re$ained an issue to %e tried

in the action. It is %ut a continuation of the

co$"laint. Its usual office is to set u" ne(

facts (hich justif#, enlarge or change the ind

of relief (ith res"ect to the sa$e su%ject

$atter as the contro'ers# referred to in the

original co$"laint.

The "ur"ose of the su""le$ental "leading is to

%ring into the records ne( facts (hich (ill

enlarge or change the ind of relief to (hich

the "laintiff is entitled- hence, an#

su""le$ental facts (hich further de'elo" the

original right of action, or eAtend to 'ar# the

relief, are a'aila%le %# (a# of su""le$entalco$"laint e'en though the# the$sel'es

constitute a right of action. ;7 >Citations

o$itted and e$"hasis ours?

Thus, a su""le$ental "leading $a# "ro"erl# allege

transactions, occurrences or e'ents (hich had trans"ired after

the filing of the "leading sought to %e su""le$ented, e'en if

the said su""le$ental facts constitute another cause of action.

ere, the issue as to the 'alidit# of the donation inter vivos of

)ot No. 70 and half of )ot No. 706 $ade %# Rita in fa'or of Florante is a ne( cause of action that occurred after the

filing of the original co$"laint. o(e'er, the "etitionersK

"ra#er for the rescission of the said donation inter vivos in their

su""le$ental "leading is ger$ane to, and is in fact, intert(ined

(ith the cause of action in the "artition case. )ot No. 70 and

half of )ot No. 706 are included a$ong the "ro"erties that

(ere sought to %e "artitioned.

The "etitionersK su""le$ental "leading $erel# a$"lified the

original cause of action, on account of the gratuitous

con'e#ance of )ot No. 70 and half of )ot No. 706 after the

filing of the original co$"laint and "ra#ed for additional

reliefs, i.e., rescission. Indeed, the "etitioners clai$ that the

said lots for$ "art of the estate of "ouses 8a#lon, %ut cannot

%e "artitioned unless the gratuitous con'e#ance of the sa$e is

rescinded. Thus, the "rinci"al issue raised %# the "etitioners in

their original co$"laint re$ained the sa$e.

!etition is "artl# granted. The case is re$anded to the RTC.

BANDA !S ERI"A

3GR NO. 14442/ A%RIL 2/, 2/1/6





F:CT3 The "etitioners filed this action as a class suit on their

o(n %ehalf and on %ehalf of all their co/e$"lo#ees at the

National !rinting 5ffice. The# challenge the constitutionalit#

of Aecuti'e 5rder No. ;7 issued %# !resident Gloria

@aca"agal :rro#o (hich a$ended ec. 6 of Aecuti'e 5rder No. 2*, re$o'ing the eAclusi'e jurisdiction of the N!5 o'er

the "rinting ser'ices re9uire$ents of go'ern$ent agencies and

instru$entalities. The# "ercei'e it as a threat to their securit#

of tenure as e$"lo#ees of the N!5 contending that it is %e#ong

the eAecuti'e "o(ers of !res. :rro#o to a$end or re"eal 5

No. 2* issued %# for$er !res. :9uino (hen the latter still

eAercised legislati'e "o(ers and that 5 No. ;7 'iolates

"etioners securit# of tenure %ecause it "a'es the (a# for the

gradual a%olition of the N!5.

I3 4hether or not the "etition is indeed 9ualified as a

class suit.

4hether or not !res. :rro#o can a$end or re"eal 5

No. 2* %# the $ere issuance of another eAecuti'e order.

)+3

The u"re$e Court ruled that an action does not

%eco$e a class suit $erel# %ecause it is designated as such in

the "leadings. nder ection 12, Rule ; of the Rules of Court,

4hen the su%ject $atter of the contro'ers# is one of co$$on

or general interest to $an# "ersons so nu$erous that it is

i$"ractica%le to join all as "arties, a nu$%er of the$ (hich the

court finds to %e sufficientl# nu$erous and re"resentati'e as to

full# "rotect the interests of all concerned $a# sue or defend

for the %enefit of all. :n# "art# in interest shall ha'e the right

to inter'ene to "rotect his indi'idual interest. Fro$ the

foregoing definition, the re9uisites of a class suit are3 1? the

su%ject $atter of contro'ers# is one of co$$on or generalinterest to $an# "ersons- 2? the "arties affected are so

nu$erous that it is i$"ractica%le to %ring the$ all to court- and

;? the "arties %ringing the class suit are sufficientl# nu$erous

or re"resentati'e of the class and can full# "rotect the interests

of all concerned.

ere, the "etition failed to state the nu$%er of N!5

e$"lo#ees (ho (ould %e affected %# the assailed Aecuti'e

5rder and (ho (ere allegedl# re"resented %# "etitioners. It

(as the olicitor General, as counsel for res"ondents, (ho

"ointed out that there (ere a%out * e$"lo#ees in the N!5.

The 67 "etitioners undenia%l# co$"rised a s$all fraction of the

N!5 e$"lo#ees (ho$ the# clai$ed to re"resent.

u%se9uentl#, ;2 of the original "etitioners eAecuted an

:ffida'it of +esistance, (hile one signed a letter den#ing e'er

signing the "etition, ostensi%l# reducing the nu$%er of

"etitioners to ;. 4e note that counsel for the "etitioners

challenged the 'alidit# of the desistance or (ithdra(al of so$e

of the "etitioners and insinuated that such desistance (as due

to "ressure fro$ "eo"le Lclose to the seat of "o(er.L till, e'en

if (e (ere to disregard the affida'it of desistance filed %# so$e

of the "etitioners, it is highl# dou%tful that a sufficient,

re"resentati'e nu$%er of N!5 e$"lo#ees ha'e instituted this

"ur"orted class suit. : "erusal of the "etition itself (ould sho(



that of the 67 "etitioners (ho signed the

&erificationJCertification of Non/Foru$ ho""ing, onl# 20

"etitioners (ere in fact $entioned in the jurat as ha'ing dul#

su%scri%ed the "etition %efore the notar# "u%lic. In other (ords,

onl# 20 "etitioners effecti'el# instituted the "resent case.

:s to the $erits of the case, it is a (ell/settled "rinci"le

in juris"rudence that the !resident has the "o(er to reorganiHe

the offices and agencies in the eAecuti'e de"art$ent in line

(ith the !residents constitutionall# granted "o(er of control

o'er eAecuti'e offices and %# 'irtue of "re'ious delegation of

the legislati'e "o(er to reorganiHe eAecuti'e offices under

eAisting statutes.

It is undis"uted that the N!5, as an agenc# that is "art

of the 5ffice of the !ress ecretar# >(hich in 'arious ti$es has

%een an agenc# directl# attached to the 5ffice of the !ress

ecretar# or as an agenc# under the !hili""ine Infor$ation

:genc#?, is "art of the 5ffice of the !resident.

!ertinent to the case at %ar, ection ;1 of the

:d$inistrati'e Code of 17 authoriHes the !resident >a? to

restructure the internal organiHation of the 5ffice of the

!resident !ro"er, including the i$$ediate 5ffices, the

!resident "ecial :ssistantsJ:d'isers #ste$ and the Co$$on

taff u""ort #ste$, %# a%olishing, consolidating or $erging

units thereof or transferring functions fro$ one unit to another,

and >%? to transfer functions or offices fro$ the 5ffice of the

!resident to an# other +e"art$ent or :genc# in the Aecuti'e

8ranch, and 'ice 'ersa.

In the case at %ar, there (as neither an a%olition of the

N!5 nor a re$o'al of an# of its functions to %e transferred to

another agenc#. nder the assailed Aecuti'e 5rder No. ;7,

the N!5 re$ains the $ain "rinting ar$ of the go'ern$ent for

all inds of go'ern$ent for$s and "u%lications %ut in theinterest of greater econo$# and encouraging efficienc# and

"rofita%ilit#, it $ust no( co$"ete (ith the "ri'ate sector for

certain go'ern$ent "rinting jo%s, (ith the eAce"tion of election

"ara"hernalia (hich re$ains the eAclusi'e res"onsi%ilit# of the

N!5, together (ith the 8ango entral ng !ili"inas, as the

Co$$ission on lections $a# deter$ine. :t $ost, there (as a

$ere alteration of the $ain function of the N!5 %# li$iting the

eAclusi'it# of its "rinting res"onsi%ilit# to election for$s.

!ursuant to ection 20, Cha"ter 7, Title I, 8oo III of

the sa$e Code, the "o(er of the !resident to reorganiHe the

Aecuti'e 8ranch under ection ;1 includes such "o(ers and

functions that $a# %e "ro'ided for under other la(s. To %e

sure, an inclusi'e and %road inter"retation of the !residents

"o(er to reorganiHe eAecuti'e offices has %een consistentl#

su""orted %# s"ecific "ro'isions in general a""ro"riations

la(s.

ection of R.:. 76* "ro'ides that the acts of

Lscaling do(n, "hasing out and a%olitionL of offices onl# and

does not co'er the creation of offices or transfer of functions.

Ne'ertheless, the act of creating and decentraliHing is included

in the su%se9uent "ro'ision of ection 62 (hich e'identl#

sho(s that the !resident is authoriHed to effect organiHational



changes including the creation of offices in the de"art$ent or

agenc# concerned.

Nota%l#, in the "resent case, the 200; General

:""ro"riations :ct, (hich (as reenacted in 200 >the #ear of the issuance of Aecuti'e 5rder No. ;7?, lie(ise ga'e the

!resident the authorit# to effect a (ide 'ariet# of

organiHational changes in an# de"art$ent or agenc# in the

Aecuti'e 8ranch. ections 77 and 7 of said :ct recogniHe the

"o(er of the !resident to reorganiHe e'en eAecuti'e offices

alread# funded %# the said a""ro"riations act, including the

"o(er to i$"le$ent structural, functional, and o"erational

adjust$ents in the eAecuti'e %ureaucrac# and, in so doing,

$odif# or realign a""ro"riations of funds as $a# %e necessar#

under such reorganiHation. Thus, insofar as "etitioners "rotest

the li$itation of the N!5s a""ro"riations to its o(n inco$e

under Aecuti'e 5rder No. ;7, the sa$e is statutoril#

authoriHed %# the a%o'e "ro'isions.

In the "resent instance, in'ol'ing neither an a%olition

nor transfer of offices, the assailed action is a $ere

reorganiHation under the general "ro'isions of the la(

consisting $ainl# of strea$lining the NT: in the interest of

si$"licit#, econo$# and efficienc#. It is an act (ell (ithin the

authorit# of the !resident $oti'ated and carried out, according

to the findings of the a""ellate court, in good faith, a factual

assess$ent that this Court could onl# %ut acce"t.

ReorganiHations in this jurisdiction ha'e %een regarded

as 'alid "ro'ided the# are "ursued in good faith. :s a general

rule, a reorganiHation is carried out in Lgood faithL if it is for

the "ur"ose of econo$# or to $ae %ureaucrac# $ore efficient.

In that e'ent, no dis$issal >in case of a dis$issal? or se"aration

actuall# occurs %ecause the "osition itself ceases to eAist. :nd

in that case, securit# of tenure (ould not %e a Chinese (all. 8ethat as it $a#, if the La%olition,L (hich is nothing else %ut a

se"aration or re$o'al, is done for "olitical reasons or

"ur"osel# to defeat securit# of tenure, or other(ise not in good

faith, no 'alid La%olitionL taes "lace and (hate'er La%olitionL

is done, is 'oid ab initio. There is an in'alid La%olitionL as

(here there is $erel# a change of no$enclature of "ositions, or

(here clai$s of econo$# are %elied %# the eAistence of a$"le

funds.

In su$, the Court finds that the "etition failed to sho(

an# constitutional infir$it# or gra'e a%use of discretion

a$ounting to lac or eAcess of jurisdiction in !resident

:rro#os issuance of Aecuti'e 5rder No. ;7.

4RF5R, the "etition is here%# +I@I+ and the

"ra#er for a Te$"orar# Restraining 5rder andJor a 4rit of

!reli$inar# Injunction is here%# +NI+. No costs.

5 5R+R+.

ROGER !. NA!ARRO vs. HON. JOSE L. ES$OBIDO

F:CT3 Res"ondent Maren T. Go filed t(o co$"laints %efore

the RTC for re"le'in andJor su$ of $one# (ith da$ages



against Na'arro. In these co$"laints, Maren Go "ra#ed that the

RTC issue (rits of re"le'in for the seiHure of t(o >2? $otor

'ehicles in Na'arros "ossession. In his :ns(ers, Na'arro

alleged as a s"ecial affir$ati'e defense that the t(o co$"laints

stated no cause of action, since Maren Go (as not a "art# to the)ease :gree$ents (ith 5"tion to !urchase >collecti'el#, the

lease agree$ents? the actiona%le docu$ents on (hich the

co$"laints (ere %ased. RTC dis$issed the case %ut set aside

the dis$issal on the "resu$"tion that Glenn Gos >hus%and?

leasing %usiness is a conjugal "ro"ert# and thus ordered Maren

Go to file a $otion for the inclusion of Glenn Go as co/"laintiff

as "er Rule , ection ; of the Rules of Court. Na'arro filed a

"etition for certiorari (ith the C:. :ccording to Na'arro, a

co$"laint (hich failed to state a cause of action could not %e

con'erted into one (ith a cause of action %# $ere a$end$ent

or su""le$ental "leading. C: denied "etition.

I3 4hether or not Maren Go is a real "art# in interest.

)+3 B. Maren Go is the registered o(ner of the %usiness

na$e Margo nter"rises, as the registered o(ner of Margo

nter"rises, Maren Go is the "art# (ho (ill directl# %enefit

fro$ or %e injured %# a judg$ent in this case. Thus, contrar# to Na'arros contention, Maren Go is the real "art#/in/interest,

and it is legall# incorrect to sa# that her Co$"laint does not

state a cause of action %ecause her na$e did not a""ear in the

)ease :gree$ent that her hus%and signed in %ehalf of Margo

nter"rises.

Glenn and Maren Go are effecti'el# co/o(ners of Margo

nter"rises and the "ro"erties registered under this na$e-

hence, %oth ha'e an e9ual right to see "ossession of these

"ro"erties. Therefore, onl# one of the co/o(ners, na$el# the

co/o(ner (ho filed the suit for the reco'er# of the co/o(ned

"ro"ert#, is an indis"ensa%le "art# thereto. The other co/o(ners

are not indis"ensa%le "arties. The# are not e'en necessar# "arties, for a co$"lete relief can %e accorded in the suit e'en

(ithout their "artici"ation, since the suit is "resu$ed to ha'e

%een filed for the %enefit of all co/o(ners.

4e hold that since Glenn Go is not strictl# an indis"ensa%le

"art# in the action to reco'er "ossession of the leased 'ehicles,

he onl# needs to %e i$"leaded as a "ro/for$a "art# to the suit,

%ased on ection , Rule of the Rules, (hich states3

ection ."ouses as "arties. us%and and (ife shall sue or

%e sued jointl#, eAce"t as "ro'ided %# la(.

'en assu$ing that Glenn Go is an indis"ensa%le "art# to the

action, $isjoinder or non/joinder of indis"ensa%le "arties in a

co$"laint is not a ground for dis$issal of action as "er Rule ;,

ection 11 of the Rules of Court.

B'7'so vs %'(os

It is an enshrined rule that e'en a registered o(ner $a# %e

%arred fro$ reco'ering "ossession of "ro"ert# %# 'irtue of laches.

!adigos et.al. filed %efore the Regional Trial Court >RTC? of

Ce%u Cit# a co$"laint against 8acalso et al. for 9uieting of

title, declaration of nullit# of docu$ents, reco'er of "ossession,

and da$ages. : "arcel of land >the lot? located in Ce%u (as

registered in the na$e of thirteen >1;? co/o(ners to (hich



@aAi$o !adigos, et al are all heirs. Rosendo 8acalso et al

occu"ied the dis"uted land for a cou"le of decades in (hich

the# turned it into far$land. !adigos et al. alleged that Rosendo

8acalso et al., heirs of :li"io 8acalso r. >:li"io, r.?, secured

a fraudulent TaA +eclaration co'ering the dis"uted "otions of the lot (ithout an# legal %asis. In their ans(er, 8acalso et. al.

clai$ed that their father :li"io, r. %ought shares

corres"onding to so$e of the 1; co/o(ners 'ia deed of sale

decades ago. :li"io, r. onl# failed to register the land to his

na$e %ut su%se9uentl# occu"ied the land and "assed it on to

his heirs. 8acalso et. al also alleged that e'en if !adigos et als

clai$ o'er the land is 'alid, the action to reco'er is %arred %#

laches since !adigos et al did not clai$ the land at the earliest

"ossi%le ti$e. :fter trial, RTC ruled in fa'or of !adigos et. al.

8acalso et. al. a""ealed. The Court of :""eals found the deed

of sale 'alid 8acalso et. al s "ro"ert# and also cited laches as a

$eans of loosing of a right o'er the "ro"ert#.

I3 4hether or not !adigos et. al.s clai$ is %arred %#

laches

)+3 a'ing failed to esta%lish their clai$ %# "re"onderance

of e'idence, !adigos et.als action for 9uieting of title,declaration of nullit# of docu$ents, reco'er# of "ossession,

and da$ages $ust fail. !adigos et. al. lost the right of action to

the "ro"ert# %# laches / the negligence or o$ission to assert a

right (ithin a reasona%le ti$e, (arranting a "resu$"tion that

the "art# entitled to assert it has either a%andoned it or declined

to assert it. 4hile, %# eA"ress "ro'ision of la(, no title to

registered land in derogation of that of the registered o(ner

shall %e ac9uired %# "rescri"tion or ad'erse "ossession, it is an

enshrined rule that e'en a registered o(ner $a# %e %arred fro$

reco'ering "ossession of "ro"ert# %# 'irtue of laches. "on the

other hand, 8acalso et. al ha'e %een 'igilant in "rotecting their

rights o'er the lot, (hich their "redecessor/in/interest :li"io,r. had declared in his na$e for taA "ur"oses as earl# as 160,

and for (hich he had %een "a#ing taAes until his death in 1,

%# continuing to "a# the taAes thereon.

G.R. No. 1::+29 November 2+, 2//9

ANI$IA !ALDE;-"ALLORIN, %eo)er,

vs.

HEIRS OF JUANI"O "ARONA, Re<rese)e b= $ARLOS"ARONA, ROGELIO "ARONA ') LOURDES

"ARONA, Res<o)e)s.

F:CT3 5n Fe%ruar# , 1 res"ondents Carlos, Rogelio, and

)ourdes Tarona >the Taronas? filed an action %efore the

Regional Trial Court >RTC? of 8alanga, 8ataan, against

"etitioner :nicia &aldeH/Tallorin >Tallorin? for the cancellation

of her and t(o other (o$ens taA declaration o'er a "arcel of

land.

The Taronas alleged in their co$"laint that, unno(n to

the$, in 11, the :ssessors 5ffice of @orong in 8ataan

cancelled TaA +eclaration 6; in the na$e of their father,

uanito Tarona >uanito?, co'ering 6,16 s9uare $eters of land

in @orong, 8ataan. The cancellation (as said to %e %ased on an

unsigned though notariHed affida'it that uanito allegedl#



eAecuted in fa'or of "etitioner Tallorin and t(o others, na$el#,

@argarita !astelero &da. de &aldeH and +olores &aldeH, (ho

(ere not i$"leaded in the action. In "lace of the cancelled one,

the :ssessors 5ffice issued TaA +eclaration 616 in the na$es

of the latter three "ersons. The old $an Taronas affida'it had %een $issing and no co"# could %e found a$ong the records of

the :ssessors 5ffice.

The Taronas further alleged that, (ithout their fathers

affida'it on file, it follo(ed that his taA declaration had %een

illegall# cancelled and a ne( one illegall# issued in fa'or of

Tallorin and the others (ith her. The uneA"lained

disa""earance of the affida'it fro$ official files, the Taronas

concluded, co'ered/u" the falsification or forger# that caused

the su%stitution. The Taronas ased the RTC to annul TaA

+eclaration 616, reinstate TaA +eclaration 6;, and issue a

ne( one in the na$e of uanitos heirs.

I3 4hether or not Taronas co$"laint should %e

dis$issed for not i$"leading @argarita !astelero &da. de

&aldeH and +olores &aldeH in (hose na$es, lie their co/

o(ner Tallorin, the annulled taA declaration had %een issued.

R)ING3 The rules $andate the joinder of indis"ensa%le

"arties. Thus3

ec. 7. Co$"ulsor# joinder of indis"ensa%le "arties. !arties

in interest (ithout (ho$ no final deter$ination can %e had of

an action shall %e joined either as "laintiffs and defendants.

Indis"ensa%le "arties are those (ith such an interest in the

contro'ers# that a final decree (ould necessaril# affect their

rights, so that the courts cannot "roceed (ithout their "resence.

oining indis"ensa%le "arties into an action is $andator#, %eing

a re9uire$ent of due "rocess. 4ithout their "resence, the judg$ent of the court cannot attain real finalit#.

udg$ents do not %ind strangers to the suit. The a%sence of an

indis"ensa%le "art# renders all su%se9uent actions of the court

null and 'oid. Indeed, it (ould ha'e no authorit# to act, not

onl# as to the a%sent "art#, %ut as to those "resent as (ell. :nd

(here does the res"onsi%ilit# for i$"leading all indis"ensa%le

"arties lie It lies in the "laintiff.

ere, the Taronas sought the annul$ent of the taA declaration

in the na$es of defendant Tallorin and t(o others, na$el#,

@argarita !astelero &da. de &aldeH and +olores &aldeH and, in

its "lace, the reinstate$ent of the "re'ious declaration in their

father uanitos na$e. Further, the Taronas sought to strie

do(n as 'oid the affida'it in (hich uanito renounced his

tenanc# right in fa'or of the sa$e three "ersons. It is ine'ita%le

that an# decision granting (hat the Taronas (anted (ould

necessaril# affect the rights of such "ersons to the "ro"ert#

co'ered %# the taA declaration.

The Court cannot discount the i$"ortance of taA declarations

to the "ersons in (hose na$es the# are issued. Their

cancellation ad'ersel# affects the rights and interests of such

"ersons o'er the "ro"erties that the docu$ents co'er. The

reason is si$"le3 a taA declaration is a "ri$ar# e'idence, if not



the source, of the right to clai$ title of o(nershi" o'er real

"ro"ert#, a right enforcea%le against another "erson. The Court

held in riarte '. !eo"le that, although not conclusi'e, a taA

declaration is a telling e'idence of the declarants "ossession

(hich could ri"en into o(nershi".

JESUS G. $RISOLOGO ') NANE""E B.

$RISOLOGO, %eo)ers, vs. JE> AGRO-

INDUS"RIAL $OR%ORA"ION, Res<o)e).

F:CT3 This contro'ers# ste$$ed fro$ 'arious cases of

collection for su$ of $one# filed against o Meng Mo, the

o(ner of 'arious "ro"erties including t(o >2? "arcels of land

co'ered %# TCT Nos. 22*7 and 22600 >su%ject "ro"erties?,

(hich (ere attached %# 'arious creditors including the

"etitioners in this case. :s a result, the le'ies (ere annotated

on the %ac of the said titles.

!etitioners esus G. Crisologo and Nannette 8. Crisologo

>"ouses Crisologo? (ere the "laintiffs in t(o >2? collection

cases %efore RTC, 8ranch 1*, +a'ao Cit# >RTC/8r. 1*?,

doceted as Ci'il Case Nos. 26,10/ and 26,11/, against

Ro%ert )i$so, o Meng Moc, et al. Res"ondent 4@ :gro/

Industrial Cor"oration >4@? (as the successor/in/interest of

one # en 8en, the "laintiff in another collection case %efore

RTC, 8ranch , +a'ao Cit# >RTC/8r. ?, doceted as Ci'il

Case No. 26,*1;/, against the sa$e defendants.

5n 5cto%er 1, 1, RTC/8r. rendered its decision %ased on

a co$"ro$ise agree$ent, dated 5cto%er 1*, 1, %et(een the

"arties (herein the defendants in said case (ere directed to

transfer the su%ject "ro"erties in fa'or of # en 8en. The

latter su%se9uentl# sold the su%ject "ro"erties to one Nilda

)a$ (ho, in turn, sold the sa$e to 4@ on une 1, 2000.

Thereafter, TCT Nos. ;2*67* and ;2*676 (ere e'entuall#issued in the na$e of 4@, %oth of (hich still %earing the

sa$e annotations as (ell as the notice of lis "endens in

connection (ith the other "ending cases filed against o Meng

Mo.

: #ear thereafter, "ouses Crisologo "re'ailed in the se"arate

collection case filed %efore RTC/8r. 1* against Ro%ert )i$ o

and o Meng Moc >defendants?. Thus, on ul# 1, 1, the said

defendants (ere ordered to solidaril# "a# the "ouses

Crisologo. 4hen this decision attained finalit#, the# $o'ed for

eAecution. 5n une 1*, 2010, a (rit (as e'entuall# issued.

:cting on the sa$e, the 8ranch heriff issued a notice of sale

scheduling an auction on :ugust 26, 2010. The notice of sale

included, a$ong others, the su%ject "ro"erties co'ered %# TCT

Nos. ;2*67* and ;2*676, no(, in the na$e of 4@.

In the sa$e "roceedings, 4@ i$$ediatel# filed its :ffida'it

of Third !art# Clai$ and the rgent @otion :d Cautela$. It

"ra#ed for the eAclusion of the su%ject "ro"erties fro$ the

notice of sale. In an order, dated :ugust 26, 2010, ho(e'er, the

$otion (as denied. In turn, the "ouses Crisologo "osted a

%ond in order to "roceed (ith the eAecution.

To "rotect its interest, 4@ filed a se"arate action for

cancellation of lien (ith "ra#er for the issuance of a



"reli$inar# injunction %efore RTC/8r. 1, doceted as Ci'il

Case No. ;;,**1/2010. It "ra#ed for the issuance of a (rit of

"reli$inar# injunction to "re'ent the "u%lic sale of the su%ject

"ro"erties co'ered in the (rit of eAecution issued "ursuant to

the ruling of RTC/8r. 1*- the cancellation of all the annotationson the %ac of the "ertinent TCTs- and the issuance of a

"er$anent injunction order after trial on the $erits. LThe

Register of +eeds of +a'ao Cit#, heriff Ro%ert @edialdea,

ohn and ane +oes and all "ersons acting under their

directionL (ere i$"leaded as defendants.

:t the scheduled hearing %efore RTC/8r. 1 on e"te$%er 22,

2010, "ouses Crisologos counsel a""eared and filed in o"en

court their &er# rgent @anifestation 9uestioning the authorit#

of the said court to restrain the eAecution "roceedings in RTC/

8r. 1*. 4@ o""osed it on the ground that "ouses Crisologo

(ere not "arties in the case.

5n e"te$%er 2, 2010, "ouses Crisologo filed an 5$ni%us

@otion "ra#ing for the denial of the a""lication for (rit or

"reli$inar# injuction filed %# 4@ and asing for their

recognition as "arties.

In the 5rder, dated e"te$%er 27, 2010, RTC/8r. 1

denied "ouses Crisologos 5$ni%us and granted 4@s

a""lication for a (rit of "reli$inar# injunction.

5n 5cto%er 1, 2010, "ouses Crisologo filed a &er#

rgent 5$ni%us @otion %efore RTC/8r. 1 "ra#ing for

reconsideration and the setting aside of its e"te$%er 27, 2010

5rder, ho(e'er it (as denied on 5cto%er 7, 2010 for lac of

legal standing in court considering that their counsel failed to

$ae the (ritten for$al notice of a""earance.

5n No'e$%er 12, 2010, 4@ $o'ed to declare theLdefendantsL in default (hich (as granted in an order gi'en in

o"en court on No'e$%er 1, 2010. "ouses Crisologo then

filed their &er# rgent @anifestation, dated No'e$%er ;0,

2010, arguing that the# could not %e dee$ed as defaulting

"arties %ecause the# (ere not referred to in the "ertinent

$otion and order of default.

5n No'e$%er 1, 2010, "ouses Crisologo filed (ith

the C: a "etition for certiorari* under Rule 6* of the Rules of Court assailing the RTC/8r. 1 orders, dated e"te$%er 27,

2010, 5cto%er 7, 2010 and No'e$%er , 2010, all of (hich

denied their $otion to %e recogniHed as "arties. The# also

"ra#ed for the issuance of a Te$"orar# Restraining 5rder

>TR5? andJor a 4rit of !reli$inar# Injunction.

In its Resolution, dated anuar# 6, 2011, the C: denied the

a""lication for a TR5, %ut directed "ouses Crisologo to

a$end their "etition. 5n anuar# 1, 2011, the "ouses

Crisologo filed their :$ended !etition6 (ith "ra#ers for the

issuance of a TR5 andJor (rit of "reli$inar# injunction, the

annul$ent of the afore$entioned orders of RTC 8r. 1, and the

issuance of an order dissol'ing the (rit of "reli$inar#

injunction issued in fa'or of 4@.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_196894_2014.html#fnt5






!ending dis"osition of the :$ended !etition %# the C:,

4@ filed a $otion on +ece$%er 6, 2010 %efore RTC/8r. 1

asing for the resolution of the case on the $erits and on

anuar# 10, 2011, the RTC 8r. 1 ruled in fa'or of 4@.

"ouses Crisologo then filed their 5$ni%us @otion A

:%udanti ad Cautela$, asing RTC/ 8r. 1 to reconsider the

a%o'e decision. 8ecause no $otion for inter'ention (as filed

"rior to the rendition of the judg$ent, a certificate, dated

@arch 17, 2011, (as issued declaring the anuar# 10, 2011

decision final and eAecutor#.

5n @a# 6, 2011, the C: e'entuall# denied the

:$ended !etition filed %# "ouses Crisologo for lac of $erit.It ruled that the (rit of "reli$inar# injunction su%ject of the

"etition (as alread# fait acco$"li and, as such, the issue of

gra'e a%use of discretion attri%uted to RTC/8r. 1 in granting

the relief had %eco$e $oot and acade$ic. It further held that

the failure of "ouses Crisologo to file their $otion to

inter'ene under Rule 1 rendered Rule 6* ina""lica%le as a

'ehicle to 'entilate their su""osed right in the case..

I3 4hether the C: correctl# ruled that RTC/8r. 1 acted

(ithout gra'e a%use of discretion in failing to recogniHe

"ouses Crisologo as indis"ensa%le "arties in the case for

cancellation of lien.

R)ING3 In an action for the cancellation of $e$orandu$

annotated at the %ac of a certificate of title, the "ersons

considered as indis"ensa%le include those (hose liens a""ear

as annotations "ursuant to ection 10 of !.+. No. 1*2.

In outh(estern ni'ersit# '. )aurente,16 the Court

held that the cancellation of the annotation of an encu$%rance

cannot %e ordered (ithout gi'ing notice to the "arties

annotated in the certificate of title itself. It (ould, thus, %e an

error for a judge to contend that no notice is re9uired to %e

gi'en to all the "ersons (hose liens (ere annotated at the %ac

of a certificate of title.

ere, undis"uted is the fact that "ouses Crisologosliens (ere indeed annotated at the %ac of TCT Nos. ;2*67*

and ;2*676. Thus, as "ersons (ith their liens annotated, the#

stand to %e %enefited or injured %# an# order relati'e to the

cancellation of annotations in the "ertinent TCTs. In other

(ords, the# are as indis"ensa%le as 4@ itself in the final

dis"osition of the case for cancellation, %eing one of the $an#

lien holders.

:s indis"ensa%le "arties, "ouses Crisologo should

ha'e %een joined as defendants in the case "ursuant to ection

7, Rule ; of the Rules of Court. The reason %ehind this

co$"ulsor# joinder of indis"ensa%le "arties is the co$"lete

deter$ination of all "ossi%le issues, not onl# %et(een the

"arties the$sel'es %ut also as regards other "ersons (ho $a#

%e affected %# the judg$ent.1









In this case, RTC/8r. 1, des"ite re"eated "leas %#

"ouses Crisologo to %e recogniHed as indis"ensa%le "arties,

failed to i$"le$ent the $andator# i$"ort of the aforecited

rule. In fact, in "s. Crisologo '. udge George . 5$elio,1 a

related ad$inistrati'e case, the Court found the trial judgeguilt# of gross ignorance of the la( (hen it disregarded the

clai$s of "ouses Crisologo to "artici"ate.

+es"ite the clear eAistence of gra'e a%use of discretion

on the "art of RTC/8r. 1, 4@ asserts technical grounds on

(h# the C: did not err in dis$issing the "etition 'ia Rule 6*.O

The rule is that a "etition for certiorari under Rule 6* is

"ro"er onl# if there is no a""eal, or an# "lain s"eed#, andade9uate re$ed# in the ordinar# course of la(.

In this case, no ade9uate recourse, at that ti$e, (as

a'aila%le to "ouses Crisologo, eAce"t resorting to Rule 6*.

:lthough Inter'ention under Rule 1 could ha'e %een

a'ailed of, failing to use this re$ed# should not "rejudice

"ouses Crisologo. It is the dut# of RTC/8r. 1, follo(ing the

rule on joinder of indis"ensa%le "arties, to si$"l# recogniHethe$, (ith or (ithout an# $otion to inter'ene. Through a

cursor# reading of the titles, the Court (ould ha'e noticed the

ad'erse rights of "ouses Crisologo o'er the cancellation of

an# annotations in the su%ject TCTs.

Neither (ill a""eal "ro'e ade9uate as a re$ed# since

onl# the original "arties to an action can a""eal.2* ere,

"ouses Crisologo (ere ne'er i$"leaded. ence, the# could

not ha'e utiliHed a""eal as the# ne'er "ossessed the re9uired

legal standing in the first "lace.

:nd e'en if the Court assu$es the eAistence of the legalstanding to a""eal, it $ust %e re$e$%ered that the 9uestioned

orders (ere interlocutor# in character and, as such, "ouses

Crisologo (ould ha'e to (ait, for the re'ie( %# a""eal, until

the rendition of the judg$ent on the $erits, (hich at that ti$e

$a# not %e co$ing as s"eed# as "ractica%le. 4hile (aiting,

"ouses Crisologo (ould ha'e to endure the denial of their

right, as indis"ensa%le "arties, to "artici"ate in a "roceeding in

(hich their indis"ensa%ilit# (as o%'ious. Indeed, a""eal

cannot constitute an ade9uate, s"eed# and "lain re$ed#.

The sa$e is also true if recourse to :nnul$ent of

udg$ent under Rule 7 is $ade since this re$ed#

"resu""oses a final judg$ent alread# rendered %# a trial court.

nder nor$al circu$stances, 4@ (ould %e correct

in their a'er$ent that the lac of legal standing on the "art of

"ouses Crisologo in the case %efore RTC/8r. 1 "re'ents the

latters recourse 'ia Rule 6*.

This case, ho(e'er, is an eAce"tion. In $an# instances,

the Court has ruled that technical rules of "rocedures should %e

used to "ro$ote, not frustrate the cause of justice. Rules of

"rocedure are tools designed not to th(art %ut to facilitate the

attain$ent of justice- thus, their strict and rigid a""lication

$a#, for good and deser'ing reasons, ha'e to gi'e (a# to, and







%e su%ordinated %#, the need to a"tl# dis"ense su%stantial

justice in the nor$al cause.2

8e it noted that the effect of their non/"artici"ation as

indis"ensa%le "arties is to "reclude the judg$ent, orders andthe "roceedings fro$ attaining finalit#. Ti$e and again, the

Court has ruled that the a%sence of an indis"ensa%le "art#

renders all su%se9uent actions of the court null and 'oid for

(ant of authorit# to act, not onl# as to the a%sent "arties %ut

e'en to those "resent. Conse9uentl#, the "roceedings %efore

RTC/8r. 1 (ere null and 'oid including the assailed orders,

(hich $a# %e Lignored (here'er and (hene'er it eAhi%its its

head.L2

:ll told, the C: erred in dis$issing the a$ended

"etition filed %efore it and in not finding gra'e a%use of

discretion on the "art of RTC/8r. 1.

4RF5R, the "etition is GR:NT+.

A$A>ADIB !S %OLI$E

Facts3 +i$a"into, a "olice officer (ith the ran of enior u"erintendent, (as notified in a General 5rder %# the Chief of

The +irectorial taff that he (ill %e "art of a grou" of "olice

officers (ho (ill %e co$"ulsoril# retired at the age of *6 on

une, 2002, it a""earing that his date of %irth a""earing in !N!

records (as anuar# 11, 16.

+i$a"into then filed an a""lication for late registration of his

%irth certificate (ith the @unici"al Ci'il Registrar of @ulondo,

)anao del ur. :ccording to hi$, his actual %irth date (as

anuar# 11, 1*6. This a""lication (as e'entuall# a""ro'ed.

+i$a"into then filed an action (ith the Regional Trial Court of

@ara(i Cit# for correction of entr# in his "u%lic records. In his "etition, he alleged that his actual age is onl# * #ears old,

ha'ing %een %orn on anuar# 11, 1*6- that his failure to

indicate his correct age (as due to esti$ation, @usli$s in the

south not %eing re9uired to register their %irths and deaths- this

"etition (as su%se9uentl# a""ro'ed in a judg$ent dated @arch

1;, 2002.

The !hili""ine National !olice +irectorate for Records and

!ersonnel @anage$ent thereu"on filed a !etition for

:nnul$ent of udg$ent (ith "ra#er for te$"orar# restraining

order, citing the fact that the# (ere not i$"leaded as

indis"ensa%le "arties to the "etition filed %# +i$a"into, hence

the RTC decision (as 'oid for lac of jurisdiction o'er the

!N!, an indis"ensa%le "art#.

The Court of :""eals granted the "etition filed %# the !N!, and

nullified the judg$ent of the RTC. It also issued a "er$anent

injunction %arring +i$a"into fro$ ser'ing (ith the !N!

%e#ond his co$"ulsor# retire$ent age of *2.

+i$a"into ele'ated his case to the u"re$e Court.

:$ong the issues "resented for consideration (ere3 Is the !N!

an indis"ensa%le "art# to the "etition for correction of entr# in

the "u%lic ser'ice record of +i$a"into Considering that the

decision had %eco$e final and eAecutor#, is the tate esto""ed

fro$ 9uestioning its 'alidit#







In %oth, the u"re$e Court ans(ered no3

PIn his first assigned error, "etitioner contends that res"ondent

is not an indis"ensa%le "art#. The Court is not "ersuaded. 5n

the contrar#, the Court agrees (ith the ruling of the C: that itis the integrit# and correctness of the "u%lic records in the

custod# of the !N!, National !olice Co$$ission

>N:!5)C5@? and Ci'il er'ice Co$$ission >CC? (hich

are in'ol'ed and (hich (ould %e affected %# an# decision

rendered in the "etition for correction filed %# herein "etitioner.

The afore$entioned go'ern$ent agencies are, thus, re9uired to

%e $ade "arties to the "roceeding. The# are indis"ensa%le

"arties, (ithout (ho$ no final deter$ination of the case can %e

had. :n indis"ensa%le "art# is defined as one (ho has such aninterest in the contro'ers# or su%ject $atter that a final

adjudication cannot %e $ade, in his a%sence, (ithout injuring

or affecting that interest.In the fairl# recent case of Go '.

+istinction !ro"erties +e'elo"$ent and Construction, Inc., the

Court had the occasion to reiterate the "rinci"le that3

nder ection 7, Rule ; of the Rules of Court, P"arties in

interest (ithout (ho$ no final deter$ination can %e had of an

action shall %e joined as "laintiffs or defendants.Q If there is a

failure to i$"lead an indis"ensa%le "art#, an# judg$ent

rendered (ould ha'e no effecti'eness. It is P"recisel# (hen anindis"ensa%le "art# is not %efore the court >that? an action

should %e dis$issed. The a%sence of an indis"ensa%le "art#

renders all su%se9uent actions of the court null and 'oid for

(ant of authorit# to act, not onl# as to the a%sent "arties %ut

e'en to those "resent.Q The "ur"ose of the rules on joinder of

indis"ensa%le "arties is a co$"lete deter$ination of all issues

not onl# %et(een the "arties the$sel'es, %ut also as regards

other "ersons (ho $a# %e affected %# the judg$ent. : decision

'alid on its face cannot attain real finalit# (here there is (ant

of indis"ensa%le "arties.S

Citing "re'ious authorities, the Court also held in the Go case

that3



The general rule (ith reference to the $aing of "arties in a

ci'il action re9uires the joinder of all indis"ensa%le "arties

under an# and all conditions, their "resence %eing a sine 9ua

non of the eAercise of judicial "o(er. >8orlasa '. !olistico, 7

!hil. ;*, ;? For this reason, our u"re$e Court has heldthat (hen it a""ears of record that there are other "ersons

interested in the su%ject $atter of the litigation, (ho are not

$ade "arties to the action, it is the dut# of the court to sus"end

the trial until such "arties are $ade either "laintiffs or

defendants. >!o%re, et al. '. 8lanco, 17 !hil. 1*6?. A A A 4here

the "etition failed to join as "art# defendant the "erson

interested in sustaining the "roceeding in the court, the sa$e

should %e dis$issed. A A A 4hen an indis"ensa%le "art# is not

%efore the court, the action should %e dis$issed.

The %urden of "rocuring the "resence of all indis"ensa%le

"arties is on the "laintiff.

In the instant case, there is a necessit# to i$"lead the !N!,

N:!5)C5@ and CC %ecause the# stand to %e ad'ersel#affected %# "etitioners "etition (hich in'ol'es su%stantial and

contro'ersial alterations in "etitioners ser'ice records.

@oreo'er, as correctl# "ointed out %# the 5ffice of the

olicitor General >5G?, if "etitioners ser'ice is eAtended %#

ten #ears, the go'ern$ent, through the !N!, shall %e %urdened

%# the additional salar# and %enefits that (ould ha'e to %e

gi'en to "etitioner during such eAtension. Thus, aside fro$ the

5G, all other agencies (hich $a# %e affected %# the change

should %e notified or re"resented as the truth is %est ascertainedunder an ad'ersar# s#ste$ of justice.

:s the a%o'e/$entioned agencies (ere not i$"leaded in this

case $uch less gi'en notice of the "roceedings, the decision of

the trial court granting "etitioners "ra#er for the correction of

entries in his ser'ice records, is 'oid. :s $entioned a%o'e, the

a%sence of an indis"ensa%le "art# renders all su%se9uent

actions of the court null and 'oid for (ant of authorit# to act,

not onl# as to the a%sent "arties %ut e'en as to those "resent.



P5n the 9uestion of (hether or not res"ondent is esto""ed fro$

assailing the decision of the RTC for failure of the 5G, as

go'ern$ent re"resentati'e, to "artici"ate in the "roceedings

%efore the trial court or to file an o""osition to "etitioners

"etition for correction of entries in his ser'ice records, thisCourt rules that such an a""arent o'ersight has no %earing on

the 'alidit# of the a""eal (hich the "etitioner filed %efore the

C:. Neither can the tate, as re"resented %# the go'ern$ent,

%e considered in esto""el due to the "etitioners see$ing

ac9uiescence to the judg$ent of the RTC (hen it initiall# $ade

corrections to so$e of "etitioners records (ith the !N!. This

Court has reiterated ti$e and again that the a%sence of

o""osition fro$ go'ern$ent agencies is of no controlling

significance, %ecause the tate cannot %e esto""ed %# the

o$ission, $istae or error of its officials or agents. Nor is the

Re"u%lic %arred fro$ assailing the decision granting the

"etition for correction of entries if, on the %asis of the la( and

the e'idence on record, such "etition has no $erit.Q

5ne last note fro$ the igh Court3

:t this juncture, it $a# not %e a$iss to "oint out that, lie the

C:, this Court cannot hel" %ut entertain serious dou%ts on the

'eracit# of "etitioners clai$ that he (as indeed %orn in 1*6.The late registration of "etitioners certificate of li'e %irth on

e"te$%er ;, 2001 (as $ade fort#/fi'e >*? #ears after his

su""osed %irth and a $ere ; da#s after the !N!s issuance of

its 5rder for his co$"ulsor# retire$ent. e had all the ti$e to

$ae such registration %ut (h# did he do it onl# (hen he (as

a%out to retire

The Court, lie(ise, agrees (ith the o%ser'ation of the 5G

that, if "etitioner (as indeed %orn in 1*6, he (ould ha'e %een

$erel# 1 #ears old in 170 (hen he (as a""ointed as Chief of

!olice of @ulondo, )anao del ur. This (ould not ha'e %een

legall# tena%le, considering that ection of R: 6,

other(ise no(n as the !olice :ct of 166, "ro'ides, a$ong

others, that a "erson shall not %e a""ointed to a local "olice

agenc# if he is less than t(ent#/three #ears of age. @oreo'er,

realisticall# s"eaing, it (ould %e difficult to %elie'e that a 1/

#ear old $inor (ould ser'e as a "olice officer, $uch less a

chief of "olice.



The Court also gi'es credence to the "ronounce$ent $ade %#

the C: (hich too judicial notice that in the se'eral hearings

of the "etition %efore the a""ellate court (here the "etitioner

(as "resent, the C: o%ser'ed that Pin the se'eral hearings of

this "etition %efore s (here the "ri'ate res"ondent (as "resent, he does not reall# a""ear to %e *2 #ears old %ut his old

age of 62Q

Re"u%lic 's #

Facts3 +r. :nita # filed a !etition for Correction of ntr# in

her 8irth Certificate. he i$"leaded as res"ondent the )ocal

Registrat of Gingoog Cit#. In her "etition, she ased that her

na$e, :nita # %e changed to Nor$a . )aguna#, her status %e

changed fro$ legiti$ate to illegiti$ate, and her citiHenshi"fro$ Chinese to Fili"ino, contending that her "arents (ere

ne'er $arried and her si%lings %ear the surna$e )ugsana# and

are all Fili"inos. :fter :nita #s co$"liance (ith re9uire$ent

of "u%lication in a ne(s"a"er of general circulation of the

notice of hearing of the said "etition, the RTC granted the

sa$e. 5n a""eal, C: affir$ed RTCs judg$ent on the ground

that res"ondents failure to i$"lead other indis"ensa%le "arties

(as cured u"on the "u%lication of the 5rder setting the case for

hearing in a ne(s"a"er of general circulation for three >;?

consecuti'e (ees and %# ser'ing a co"# of the notice to the

)ocal Ci'il Registrar, the 5G and the Cit# !rosecutors

5ffice.

Issue3

Is the "etition dis$issi%le for failure to i$"lead the

indis"ensa%le "arties

eld3

Bes. 4hen a "etition for cancellation or correction of an entr#

in the ci'il register in'ol'es su%stantial and contro'ersial

alterations, including those on citiHenshi", legiti$ac#

of "aternit# or filiation, or legiti$ac# of $arriage, a strict

co$"liance (ith the re9uire$ents of Rule 10 of the Rules of

Court is $andated.

ections and * of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court sho(s that

the Rules $andate t(o sets of notices to different "otential

o""ositors3 one gi'en to the "ersons na$ed in the "etition andanother gi'en to other "ersons (ho are not na$ed in the

"etition %ut nonetheless $a# %e considered interested or

affected "arties. u$$ons $ust, therefore, %e ser'ed not for

the "ur"ose of 'esting the courts (ith jurisdiction %ut to

co$"l# (ith the re9uire$ents of fair "la# and due "rocess to

afford the "erson concerned the o""ortunit# to "rotect his

interest if he so chooses.

In this case, :nita # should ha'e i$"leaded and notified notonl# the )ocal Ci'il Registrar %ut also her "arents and si%lings

as the "ersons (ho ha'e interest and are affected %# the

changes or corrections res"ondent (anted to $ae, in

co$"liance (ith Rule 10, Rules of Court.

digests jara rules 1-3

Documents