PARTIES

1. Galido v Magrare 778 SCA 677

Facts: Andigan sold undivided portions of Lot 1052-A to Nelson P. Magrare (Magrare),
Evangeline M. Palcat (Palcat) and Rodolfo Bayombong (Bayombong). To Magrare was sold an
undivided portion with an area of 700 square meters, more or less; to Palcat, 1,000 square
meters, more or less; and to Bayombong, 500 square meters, more or less.
Andigan caused the subdivision of Lot 1052-A into five lots. TCT No. T-21405 was cancelled
and new certificates were issued for the subdivided portions. However, Andigan did not turn over
the new TCTs to Magrare, Palcat and Bayombong, and the latter were unaware of the
subdivision. Andigan mortgaged the same three lots to petitioner and the latter came into
possession of the owner's duplicate copies of 3 TCTs. Magrare, Palcat and Bayombong registered
their respective adverse claims on 3 TCTs.
RTC directed that spouses Andigan to surrender or deliver to the Register of Deeds for Antique
the owner's duplicate copies of the TCTs. Spouses Andigan through counsel filed a Notice of
Appeal but was dismissed.

Issue: Whether or not the heirs of Bayombong are Indispensable Parties

Held: Yes. The Court found reversible error on the part of the trial court in not impleading the
heirs of Bayombong. Indispensable parties are parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action.50 Petitioner's action was for the cancellation of titles,
including TCT No. T-22376. The trial court itself recognized that the controversy was
contentious in nature, and required the participation of Bayombong, among others. Bayombong,
like respondents Magrare and Palcat stood to be benefited or prejudiced by the outcome of the
case. Since he was already dead at the time the case was filed by petitioner, the heirs of
Bayombong stand in his stead not only as parties in interest, but indispensable parties. Without
the heirs of Bayombong to represent the interest of Bayombong, there can be no complete
determination of all the issues presented by petitioner.
Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, as the
remedy in such case is to implead the party claimed to be indispensable, considering that 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.

2. Heirs of Jose Marie Gepuela v Menez-Andres 780 SCRA 348

FACTS: Basilia, was a widow with 5 children. She executed a “Huling Habilin” where she
named her children as voluntary heirs to 10% of the free portion of her estate. This “habilin” was
accepted as an antemortem probate. When she died, she left properties including a land in San
Juan. This property was co-owned with some of Basilia’s children and grandchildren.

Some of the co-owners of the land sold their interest over the property to Gepuela. However,
there is this one share acquired by Gepuela by paying the auction price to Benita, who won as the
highest bidder in a Civil Case against the estate of Basilia Austria Vda.de Cruz . Accordingly,
Basilia’s estate executed a Deed of Sale and Waiver of Redemption over their share subject to
the ff conditions: a.) Gepuela should obtain court approval of the sale and b.) Gepuela should
inform all heirs of the sale formally in writing.

After the expiration of the period for redemption, Gepuela filed an action to consolidate his
ownership. The petition of Gepuela was granted by the trial court and was ordered the issuance
of a new certificate of title to reflect the change of ownership. The decision of the trial court was
appealed to the CA, however the CA only affirmed the trial court’s decision. Thereafter, no
appeal was made and the decision became final and executory.

In the meantime, the grandchildren of Basilia who were HErnita and Nelia filed a complaint for
the Declaration of Nullity of Redemption on the ground that Gepuela has no legal personality.
Also, they contend that Gepuela refused to accept the payment of the redemption price they
offered to him. The CA granted the motion of the grandchildren and modified its decision in so
far as the shares of the grandchildren was concerned.

Aggrieved by the decision, Gepuela filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari on the SC assailing
the modifications made by the CA despite the finality of the judgment.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in modifying its decision on the ground of res judicata.

RULING: CA erred in modifying the final decision. The action is already barred by res judicata.
Under the rule of res judicata, a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits, and on all
points and matters determined in the former suit.

The following requisites must concur in order that a prior judgment may bar a subsequent action,
viz.: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) it must be a judgment or order on the
merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by
the parties at the trial of the case; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the first and second
actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action.

For the doctrine of res judicata to apply, identity of causes of action does not mean absolute
identity. The test to determine identity of causes of action is to ascertain whether the same
evidence necessary to sustain the second cause of action is sufficient to authorize a recovery in
the first, even if the forms or the nature of the two (2) actions are different from each other. If the
same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two (2) actions are considered the same within the
rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action; otherwise, it is not.