Post on 14-Jan-2016
description
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ne( "ositi'el# that the aforesaid lease (as declared rescinded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
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 2/23
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)
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 3/23
/ 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$e it (as filed %e cured %# the accrual of a cause of
action during the "endenc# of the case.
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 4/23
eld3 No. Cause of action, as defined in ection 2, Rule 2 of
the 17 Rules of Ci'il !rocedure, is the act or o$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.
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 5/23
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
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 6/23
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$ental "leading. Thus3
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 7/23
:s its 'er# na$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$anded to the RTC.
BANDA !S ERI"A
3GR NO. 14442/ A%RIL 2/, 2/1/6
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 8/23
F:CT3 The "etitioners filed this action as a class suit on their
o(n %ehalf and on %ehalf of all their co/e$"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$"lo#ees ha'e instituted this
"ur"orted class suit. : "erusal of the "etition itself (ould sho(
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 9/23
that of the 67 "etitioners (ho signed the
&erificationJCertification of Non/Foru$ 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
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 10/23
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
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 11/23
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
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 12/23
@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#
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 13/23
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
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 14/23
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
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 15/23
"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@.
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 16/23
!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
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 17/23
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
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 18/23
%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#
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 19/23
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
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 20/23
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.
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 21/23
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.
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 22/23
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.
7/18/2019 Digests Jara Rules 1-3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digests-jara-rules-1-3 23/23