MACABABBAD, ET. AL. vs. MASIRAG, ET. AL.

1. Petitioners: PERFECTO MACABABBAD, Jr.,** deceased, substituted by his heirs SOPHIA MACABABBAD,
GLENN M. MACABABBAD, PERFECTO VENER M. MACABABBAD III and MARY GRACE MACABABBAD, and SPS.
CHUA SENG LIN and SAY UN AY
2. Respondents: FERNANDO G. MASIRAG, FAUSTINA G. MASIRAG, CORAZON G. MASIRAG, LEONOR G.
MASIRAG, and LEONCIO M. GOYAGOY
3. Intervenors-Respondents : FRANCISCA MASIRAG BACCAY, PURA MASIRAG FERRERMELAD, and SANTIAGO
MASIRAG, (IR)
4. Date: Jan. 14, 2009
5. Ponente: Brion, J.
6. Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari (45)
7. Facts:
 R filed with RTC a COMPLAINT against Macababad, Chua, and Say (P). They amended complaint to allege
new matters
 R allege that complaint is an ACTION FOR QUIETING OF TITLE, NULLITY OF TITLES, RECONVEYANCE,
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
 That Sps Pedro and Pantaleona (Spouses) were original owners of Lot 4144 as evidenced by OCT
 Spouses had eight children
 Valeriano, Domingo, Pablo, Victoria, Vicenta, Inicio, Maxima and Maria. -> children
 Respondents Fernando, Faustina, Corazon and Leonor Masirag -> children of Valeriano
 Leoncio->son of Vicenta
 That R did not know of the demise of the Spouses; they only learned of the inheritance due to them
in March 1999 when their relative Quinto informed Fernando about it.
 It was discovered that P falsified a document entitled “Extrajudicial Settlement with Simultaneous
Sale of Portion of Registered Land (Lot 4144) dated December 3, 1967” (“extrajudicial settlement of
estate and sale”) so that R were deprived of their shares in Lot 4144
 Document bore R’s signatures when they did not eve participate in its execution. They did not even
know P.
 Document conveyed to Macababbad for sum of Php 1,800. New TCT was issued after death of
Spouses however name of Macababbad did not appear. Despite this, his Petition for Owner’s
Duplicate Copy was granted
 Macababbad registered portions of said Lot in his name and sold other portions to 3rd parties
 Chua was issued a TCT in his name
 R asked:
 that the extrajudicial settlement of estate and sale be declared null and void ab initio and that
Chua be ordered and directed to execute the necessary deed of reconveyance of the land
 issuance of a new TCT in R’ name and the cancellation of Macababbad’s and Chua’s certificates
of title
 Macababadbad filed a MOTION TO DISMISS while Chua and Sy filed APPEARANCE WITH MOTION TO
DISMISS
 RTC: Granted motion for leave to intervene and to admit complaint in intervention of IR
 RTC: Initially denied MTD. Reconsidered and dismissed the complaint
 action, which was filed 32 years after the property was partitioned and after a portion was sold to
Macababbad, had already prescribed
 there was failure to implead indispensable parties namely, the other heirs of Spouses, and the
persons who have already acquired title to portions of the subject property in good faith
 R appealed to CA
MCA A2020
  P: errors involved pure questions of law and should be brought to SC under Rule 45
 R: appeal involved mixed questions of facts and law
 CA: Reversed and set aside
 There is a cause of action; fraud was committed by the defendants on certain heirs of the original
owners of the property and that, as a result, R were deprived of interests that should have gone to
them as successors in interest
 R’ cause of action had not prescribed, because “in assailing the extrajudicial partition as void, R have
the right to bring the action unfettered by a prescriptive period.” (applying rule on implied trusts)
 SC initially denied petition for review on certiorari but then gave due course to the petition
(NOTE: Too many arguments. I will only list down what’s relevant. See page 11 for full list or see “Other Issues”
portion)
 In the alternative, ex abundanti cautela, P alleges:
 The RTC dismissal on the ground that indispensable parties were not impleaded has already
become final and executory because the CA did not pass upon this ground
 R’ argument that there was no failure to implead indispensable parties since the other heirs of
Spouses who were not impleaded were not indispensable parties in light of R’s admission that the
extrajudicial settlement is valid with respect to the other heirs who sold their shares to Macababbad
is erroneous because innocent purchasers for value of portions of Lot 4144 who are also
indispensable parties were not impleaded;
 R’s COMMENT:
 The noninclusion of indispensable parties is not a ground to dismiss the claim;
 Since the extrajudicial settlement of estate and sale was valid with respect to the other heirs who
executed it, those heirs are not indispensable parties in this case.
 Innocent purchasers for value to whom title has passed from Macababbad and the Spouses Chua and
Say are likewise not indispensable parties since the titles sought to be recovered here are still under
the name of the petitioners.

8. Issue: WON failure to plead indespensable parties is ground for dismissal? NO

9. Ratio:
Dismissal of RTC erroneous
 Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that neither misjoinder nor nonjoinder of parties is a
ground for the dismissal of an action,
 Domingo vs. Scheer:
 The proper remedy when a party is left out is to implead the indispensable party at any stage of the
action.
 The court, either motu proprio or upon the motion of a party, may order the inclusion of the
indispensable party or give the plaintiff opportunity to amend his complaint in order to include
indispensable parties.
 If the plaintiff to whom the order to include the indispensable party is directed refuses to comply
with the order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon
the court’s own motion.
 Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order to include or to amend is the action
dismissed.
 INDISPENSABLE PARTIES: parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action;
parties who possess such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their
rights so that the court cannot proceed without their presence.
Case at bar: Cannot dismiss because RTC did not order directing inclusion of indispensable parties
MCA A2020
 In an action for reconveyance, all the owners of the property sought to be recovered are indispensable
parties
 Thus, if reconveyance were the only relief prayed for impleading petitioners Macababbad and the
Spouses Chua and Say would suffice.
 On the other hand, under the claim that the action is for the declaration of the nullity of extrajudicial
settlement of estate and sale, all of the parties who executed the same should be impleaded for a
complete resolution of the case. (Note: SC determined this case to be one for declaration of nullity)
 HOWEVER, RTC never issued an order directing their inclusion. Hence, there can be no basis for the
immediate dismissal of the action.
 No merit in P’ argument that the RTC ruling dismissing the complaint on R’s failure to implead
indispensable parties had become final and executory for the CA’s failure to rule on the issue.
 nothing in the Rules of Court states that the failure of an appellate court to rule on an issue raised in
an appeal renders the appealed order or judgment final and executory with respect to the
undiscussed issue

10. Dispositive: WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for review for lack of merit.

OTHER ISSUES:

WON REMEDY AVAILED OF BY R (ORDINARY APPEAL RULE 41) BEFORE CA IS PROPER? YES
 In their Notice of Appeal, the respondents manifested their intention to appeal the assailed RTC order on
legal grounds and “on the basis of the environmental facts.” Further, in their Brief, the petitioners argued
that the RTC erred in ruling that their cause of action had prescribed and that they had “slept on their
rights.” All these indicate that questions of facts were involved, or were at least raised, in the
respondents’ appeal with the CA.
 Since the appeal raised mixed questions of fact and law no error can be imputed on the respondents for
invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the CA through an ordinary appeal

WON R’S ACTION HAS PRESCRIBED? NO

 the respondents’ amended complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause to declare the nullity of the
extrajudicial settlement of estate and sale, as they claimed in their amended complaint.
 As the nullity of the extrajudicial settlement of estate and sale has been raised and is the primary issue,
the action to secure this result will not prescribe pursuant to Article 1410 of the Civil Code.
 the action remains imprescriptible, the issuance of the certificates of titles notwithstanding.

WON LACHES APPLY IN THIS CASE? NO

 Dismissal based on laches cannot also apply in this case, as it has never reached the presentation of
evidence stage and what the RTC had for its consideration were merely the parties’ pleadings. Laches is
evidentiary in nature and cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings.

MCA A2020