Bacalso vs Padigos torts

Bacalso vs Padigos (Rule 3) Facts: 1) The case involves a parcel of land located in Inayawan, Cebu in the name of 13 co-owners. 2) a!imo "adi#os $a!imo), %laviano abuyo $%laviano), &audencio "adi#os $&audencio), 'omin#o "adi#os $'omin#o), and (ictoria ". bar*ue+ $(ictoria), who are amon# the herein respondents, filed on pril 1, 1, before the /TC of Cebu City, a Complaint, a#ainst /osendo 0acalso $/osendo) and /odri#o 0acalso $/odri#o) who are amon# the herein petitioners, for *uietin# of title, declaration of nullity of documents, recovery of possessio n, and dama#es. Their alle#ations a) a!imo and %laviano are children of the deceased co-owner implicio &audencio and 'omin#o are children of the deceased co-owner I#nacio (ictoria and respondent 4ilia ". &abison $4ilia) are #randchildren of the late co-owner %ortunata b) /osendo and /odri#o are heirs of lipio 0acalso, r. $lipio, r.) who, durin# his lifetime, secured Ta! 'eclaration 5os. 467-62223 and 4-67-62228 coverin# the lot without any le#al basis c) /osendo and /odri#o have been leasin# portions of the lot to persons who built houses thereon, and /osendo has been livin# in a house built on a portion of the lot d) 'emands to vacate and efforts at conciliation proved futile, promptin# them to file the complaint at the /TC. 3) 0y way of /eply and nswer, nswer, &audencio, a!imo, %laviano, 'omin#o, and (ictoria alle#ed that the deeds of sale on which /osendo and /odri#o base their claim of ownership of portions of the lot are spurious, but assumin# that they are not, laches had set in a#ainst lipio, r. r. and that the shares of the other co-owners of the lot cannot be ac*uired throu#h laches or prescription. 8) &audencio, a!imo, %laviano, 'omin#o, and (ictoria, with leave of court, filed an mended mended Complaint Complaint impleadin# as additional defendants lipio, r.9s other heirs. till later, &audencio et al. filed a econd mended Complaint  with leave of court, impleadin# as additional plaintiffs the other heirs of re#istered co-owner a!imiano, ) In their nswer to the econd mended Complaint, petitioners contended that the econd mended Complaint should be dismissed in view of the failure to implead other heirs of the other re#istered own ers of the lot who are indispensable parties. :) /TC Cebu ruled in favor of herein respondents. ) C affirmed the /TC rulin#. The subse*uent / was denied. ;ence, this present petition for certiorari. Issue: es. The petition is #ranted. Ratio Decidendi: /espondents admit that Teodulfo "adi#os $Teodulfo), an heir of implicio, was not impleaded. They contend, however, that the omission did not deprive the trial court of =urisdiction because rticle 87 of the Civil Code states that ?@aAny of the co-owners may brin# an action in e=ectment.? e=ectment.? /espondents9 /espondents9 contention contention does not lie. The action is for *uietin# of title, title, declaration declaration of nullity of documents, documents, recovery of possession and ownership, and dama#es. @"Aarties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. s such, they must be =oined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. The #eneral rule with reference to the maBin# of parties in a civil action re*uires, of course, the =oinder of all necessary parties where possible, and the =oinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their presence bein# a sine qua non for non for the e!ercise of =udicial power. It is precisely ?when an indispensable party is not before the court $that) the action should be dismissed.? The absence of an indispensable party renders all subse*uent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.

" etitioners should have been properly impleaded as indispensable parties. The absence then of an indispensable party renders all subse*uent actions of a court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent party but even as to those present.