View full case

NIEVES PLASABAS v. CA

FACTS:

The case revolves around a complaint filed by the petitioners for the recovery of title to a property located in Canturing, Maasin, Southern Leyte. The subject property is a parcel of coconut land. The petitioners asserted their ownership and sought to confirm their rights and legal title. They also asked for the respondents' eviction from the property and payment of damages. Conversely, the respondents disputed the petitioners' ownership and argued that the land was inherited by all parties from their common ancestor.

During the trial, it was discovered that petitioner Nieves did not solely and absolutely own the land. Instead, it was inherited by Nieves and her siblings from their ancestors. Due to this revelation, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice. The dismissal was based on the petitioners' failure to include Nieves' siblings, who were considered indispensable parties as co-owners of the property.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the failure to implead indispensable parties warrants the dismissal of the case.

  2. Whether or not the dismissal of the case without prejudice was proper.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the failure to implead indispensable parties warrants the dismissal of the case. The Supreme Court stated that parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The non-joinder of indispensable parties would result in a lack of cause of action and any judgment would have no effectiveness. Thus, the case should have been dismissed without prejudice for lack of cause of action.

  2. Yes, the dismissal of the case without prejudice was proper. The trial court correctly applied the rule that if it appears on record that there are other persons interested in the subject matter of litigation, who are not made parties to the action, it is the duty of the court to suspend the trial until such parties are made either plaintiffs or defendants. The trial court, in its April 19, 1993 Order, dismissed the case without ruling on the merits due to the failure to implead the indispensable parties.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.

  • The non-joinder of indispensable parties would result in a lack of cause of action and any judgment would have no effectiveness.

  • If it appears on record that there are other persons interested in the subject matter of litigation, who are not made parties to the action, it is the duty of the court to suspend the trial until such parties are made either plaintiffs or defendants.