Está en la página 1de 2

[G.R. No. 138497.

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