FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 216550. June 3, 2019.]
TEODORO F. ORENCIA, JUANA O. LAROYA, HILARIA MALICDEM, BEATRIZ O. PORRAS, MARINA O. RIVERA, VIRINA O. ABUBO, JOSEPHINE O. TANGALAN AND JOSE ORENCIA, petitioners, vs.HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO F. ORENCIA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 3, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 216550 (TEODORO F. ORENCIA, JUANAO. LAROYA, HILARIA MALICDEM, BEATRIZ O. PORRAS, MARINA O. RIVERA, VIRINA O. ABUBO, JOSEPHINE O. TANGALAN and JOSE ORENCIA,Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO F. ORENCIA, Respondents.) — We DENY this petition from the decision 1 promulgated on July 21, 2014, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside in CA-G.R. CV No. 96787 the decision 2 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, Agoo, La Union, and remanded the same to the RTC to include and implead the heirs of Mariano Orencia either as co-plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be, in the partition case.
In reversing the ruling of the RTC, the CA noted that the petitioners failed to implead all the indispensable parties in their complaint. The CA pointed out that the petitioners failed to include the heirs of Mariano Orencia, who predeceased the other siblings (the petitioners and the respondent in this case). Citing the laws on succession, the CA explained that Mariano's heirs (namely Ernesto, Tony and Lucina) are also among the legal heirs of Spouses Ambrocio and Marta, who may inherit from their grandparents by right of representation pursuant to Article 982 3 of the New Civil Code. Thus, the petitioners should have impleaded the heirs of Mariano as they also have an interest in the subject property.
We find no error on the part of the CA. Indeed, all the co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties; as such, an action for partition will not lie without the joinder of the said parties. 4
Moreover, Section 1, Rule 69 5 in relation to Section 7, Rule 3 6 of the Rules of Court, requires that all persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants. Accordingly, the absence of Mariano's heirs in the instant complaint for judicial partition shall render all subsequent actions of the RTC null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties, but even as to those present 7
We must note, however, that the non-joinder of such parties, shall not result in the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint pursuant to Section 11, Rule 3 8 of the Rules. Thus, in Ablaza v. Republic, 9 this Court found that failure to implead some of the heirs had constrained the Court to return the records of the case to the trial court for further proceedings, with instructions to first require the petitioner to amend his initiatory pleading in order to implead the said heirs. In remanding the case to the RTC, this Court ruled that failure to implead the heirs did was not fatal under Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules. 10
Accordingly, the CA correctly set aside the March 14, 2011 decision 11 of the RTC and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for lack of merit; AFFIRMS the July 21, 2014 decision and January 13, 2015 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 96787; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."Carandang, J.,on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 86-94; penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with the concurrence of Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino.
2.Id. at 67-71; penned by Presiding Judge Jennifer A. Pilar.
3. ARTICLE 982. The grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of representation, and if any one of them should have died, leaving several heirs, the portion pertaining to him shall be divided among the latter in equal portions. (Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, June 18, 1949)
4.Divinagracia v. Parilla, G.R. No. 196750, March 11, 2015, 753 SCRA 87, 94.
5. Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. — A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property.
6. Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. — Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
7.Divinagracia v. Parilla, G.R. No. 196750, March 11, 2015, 753 SCRA 87, 96.
8. Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately.
9.Ablaza v. Republic, G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 27.
10.Id. at p. 41.
11.Rollo, pp. 67-71.