[G.R. No. 138497.
January 16, 2002] and her children, turn over his share in the co-
IMELDA RELUCIO, petitioner,
vs.
ANGELINA MEJIA LOPEZ, respondent.
Topic: Parties to a Civil Action
Facts: Angelina Mejia Lopez filed a petition for APPOINTMENT
AS SOLE ADMINISTRATRIX OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
OF PROPERTIES, FORFEITURE, ETC., against defendant
Alberto Lopez and petitioner Imelda Relucio. Angelina
who is legally married to Alberto alleged that the latter
abandoned her and their 4 children that he arrogated
unto himself full and exclusive control and
administration of the conjugal properties, spending and
using the same for his sole gain and benefit to the total
exclusion of the private respondent and their four
children; that defendant Lopez, after abandoning his
family, maintained an illicit relationship and cohabited
with herein petitioner since 1976. Motion to Dismiss
the Petition was filed by Imelda on the ground that
Angelina has no cause of action against her.
Respondent Judge denied Relucios Motion to Dismiss
on the ground that she is impleaded as a necessary or
indispensable party because some of the subject
properties are registered in her name and defendant
Lopez, or solely in her name. Relucio filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but was denied. CA also denied.
Issue: whether Imelda Relucio is a real party in interest?
Ruling: No. A real party in interest is one who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit. In this
case, petitioner would not be affected by any judgment
in Special Proceedings M-3630. If petitioner is not a real
party in interest, she cannot be an indispensable
party. An indispensable party is one without whom
there can be no final determination of an
action. Imelda Relucio’s participation in Special
Proceedings M-3630 is not indispensable. Certainly, the
trial court can issue a judgment ordering Alberto J.
Lopez to make an accounting of his conjugal partnership
with respondent, and give support to respondent and
their children, and dissolve Alberto J. Lopez conjugal
partnership with respondent, and forfeit Alberto J.
Lopez share in property co-owned by him and
petitioner. Such judgment would be perfectly valid and
enforceable against Alberto J. Lopez.
Nor can petitioner be a necessary party in Special
Proceedings M-3630. A necessary party as one who is
not indispensable but who ought to be joined as party
if complete relief is to be accorded those already
parties, or for a complete determination or settlement
of the claim subject of the action. In the context of her
petition in the lower court, respondent would be
accorded complete relief if Alberto J. Lopez were
ordered to account for his alleged conjugal partnership
property with respondent, give support to respondent
ownership with petitioner and dissolve his conjugal
partnership or absolute community property with
respondent.
[G.R. No. 115838. July 18, 2002]
CONSTANTE AMOR DE CASTRO and CORAZON AMOR DE
CASTRO, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and FRANCISCO ARTIGO, respondents.
Topic: Parties to a civil action
Facts: De castro were co-owners of four (4) lots. In a letter, Artigo
was authorized by appellants to act as real estate broker
in the sale of these properties and five percent(5%) of
which will be given to the agent as commission. It was
Artigo who first found Times Transit Corporation, who
bought 2 lots. Artigo felt short of his commission. Hence,
he sued Petitioners to collect the balance. De castros then
moved for the dismissal for failure to implead other co-
owners as indispensable parties. The De Castros claim
that Artigo always knew that the two lots were co-owned
with their other siblings and failure to implead such
indispensable parties is fatal to the complaint since
Artigo, as agent of all the four co-owners, would be paid
with funds co-owned by the four co-owners.
Issue: WON the complaint merits dismissal for failure to implead
other co-owners as indispensable parties
Ruling: Devoid of Merit. An indispensable party is one whose
interest will be affected by the courts action in the
litigation, and without whom no final determination of
the case can be had. The joinder of indispensable
parties is mandatory and courts cannot proceed
without their presence. Whenever it appears to the
court in the course of a proceeding that an
indispensable party has not been joined, it is the duty of
the court to stop the trial and order the inclusion of such
party. However, the rule on mandatory joinder of
indispensable parties is not applicable to the instant
case. The De Castros admit that the other co-owners
are solidarily liable under the contract of agency, citing
art 2195 CC. The solidary liability of the four co-owners,
however, militates against the De Castros theory that
the other co-owners should be impleaded as
indispensable parties. Solidarity does not make a
solidary obligor an indispensable party in a suit filed by
the creditor. Article 1216 of the Civil Code says that the
creditor `may proceed against anyone of the solidary
debtors or some or all of them simultaneously.