Agcaoili vs. Mata

In an action for partition, all co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties; their non-joinder renders all subsequent 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, and the proper remedy is to implead them, not to dismiss the case. The trial court also violated due process when it motu proprio ordered the ejectment of the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. without summoning them, and petitioner’s claimed adopted heirship must be determined on remand.

Respondent Elmer Mata was a son of Spouses Pedro Mata, Sr. and Josefina B. Mata, who acquired Lot No. 17566, Cad-738-D, Pagudpud Cadastre, from Justo Mata. Petitioner George Agcaoili claims to be the legally adopted son of Josefina and her second husband Emilio Agcaoili, while Pedro Mata, Jr. was Elmer’s brother and co-heir. The dispute concerns the validity of a subdivision plan and tax declarations over the lot and the partition of the estate among the compulsory heirs. Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court governs actions for partition and requires the joinder of all persons interested in the property.

Justo Mata owned a parcel of land at Caunayan, Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, covered by Tax Declaration No. 016771 and described as pasto and unirrigated rice land consisting of an area of 6,500 and 7,500 respectively, bounded on the North by Francisco Abadilla, on the East by Monte, on the South by Tomas Peralta, and on the West by Playa del Mar. On May 14, 1944, Justo sold the lot to Spouses Pedro Mata, Sr. and Josefina B. Mata by deed of absolute sale. The spouses had two children: respondent Elmer Mata and Pedro Mata, Jr. Pedro Mata, Sr. died on July 11, 1950. On May 16, 1954, the widowed Josefina married Emilio Agcaoili. Josefina and Emilio died without any children.

According to respondent, while Josefina and Emilio were alive, the lot was surreptitiously declared in their names without his knowledge and used as collateral for their purchase of a rifle. In 2001, petitioner George Agcaoili, Bonifacio Morales, Rolando Paulo, Nathaniel Flores, Alan Keane Ancheta, and Celia Edu surreptitiously and fraudulently subdivided the lot, also without respondent’s knowledge and permission. The signatures of Josefina and Emilio did not appear on the subdivision plan. The foreshore portion of the lot, measuring 18,000 square meters, was solely declared in the name of Pedro Mata, Jr. The defendants fraudulently secured tax declarations: Nos. 97-008-01287, 97-008-01286, and 97-008-01285 for George Agcaoili; No. 97-008-01281 for Bonifacio Morales; No. 97-008-01279 for Rolando Paulo; Nos. 97-008-01277 and 97-008-01276 for Nathaniel Flores; No. 97-008-01280 for Alan Keane Ancheta; and Nos. 97-008-01293, 97-008-01292, and 97-008-01291 for the Heirs of Tomas Peralta. Respondent prayed that the subdivision plan and all tax declarations in the names of George Agcaoili, Bonifacio Morales, Rolando Paulo, Nathaniel Flores, Alan Keane Ancheta, and the Heirs of Tomas Peralta be declared void, and sought attorney’s fees, moral damages, and exemplary damages to protect his inheritance comprising half of the lot. Respondent died on December 6, 2007 and was substituted by his heirs.

In his answer, George Agcaoili averred that Spouses Josefina and Emilio had openly, continuously, exclusively, and notoriously occupied the lot for more than thirty years. The Declaration of Status of Real Property, which respondent himself signed, showed the division/distribution of the land; there, respondent, his brother Pedro Mata, Jr., and George decided to terminate their co-ownership and divided the lot among themselves. The foreshore lot measuring 18,000 square meters was under the name of Pedro Mata, Jr., and did not form part of the lot they had divided. Respondent was bound by the subdivision plan which he himself signed. George later testified that he was the biological son of Pedro Mata, Jr. but was legally adopted by Spouses Emilio and Josefina Agcaoili.

Rolando Paulo and Nathaniel Flores averred that Rolando was a crew member and Nathaniel was the geodetic engineer of the team hired to survey and subdivide the lot. In exchange for their financial support and professional services, Josefina conveyed the lot covered by T.D. No. 97-008-01279 to Rolando Paulo and the lots covered by T.D. Nos. 97-008-01277 and 97-008-01276 to Nathaniel Flores. Bonifacio Morales admitted he was issued T.D. No. 97-008-01281 covering Lot No. 17566-D, but denied that fraud tainted the subdivision and issuance of the tax declaration; Josefina conveyed the portion to him in consideration of the financial assistance he extended her and the professional services he rendered in the subdivision of the lot and transfer of the shares under the Declaration of Status of Real Estate Property. On February 20, 2006, Allan Keane Ancheta and Celia Edu were declared in default for their failure to file answers.

After due proceedings, the RTC found that the subject property was the conjugal property of the late Spouses Pedro Mata, Sr. and Josefina B. Mata. It found the Declaration of the Status of Real Estate Property of Lot No. 17566, Cad-738-D, and the Subdivision Plan invalid, and consequently held that the subsequent transfers by Josefina to George Agcaoili, Bonifacio Morales, Rolando Paulo, Nathaniel Flores, and Alan Keane Ancheta were invalid, conferring no rights upon the transferees under the principle of nemo dat quod non habet. The RTC also found that the western portion containing an area of 18,076 square meters claimed by Pedro B. Mata, Jr. was part of the subject lot, as contained in the report of the DENR representative in the name of Alberto Baguio.

• Non-joinder of Indispensable Parties: Petitioner argued that the trial court failed to observe the procedural rule governing actions for partition, specifically the requirement that the indispensable parties, namely Pedro Mata, Jr. or his heirs (his wife, five children, and grandchild), should have been impleaded from the beginning.
• Failure to Determine Propriety of Partition: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals overlooked the trial court’s failure to first determine whether partition was proper before proceeding to order it.
• Exclusion as Adopted Heir: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in ordering the partition of the lot in equal shares only between Elmer Mata and the deceased Pedro Mata, Jr., excluding himself, because he is the legally adopted son of Spouses Josefina and Emilio Agcaoili and has a vested right in the lot.

• Inclusion in Partition: Respondent’s heirs countered that although Pedro Mata, Jr. and his heirs did not participate in the proceedings below, they were still included in the partition of the property per the trial court’s directive.
• Defense of CA Dispositions: Respondent’s heirs defended the dispositions of the Court of Appeals.

• Non-joinder of Indispensable Parties: Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it ordered the partition of the lot even though not all indispensable parties were impleaded in the case below.
• Due Process in Ordering Ejectment: Whether the trial court violated due process when it motu proprio ordered the ejectment of the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. without impleading or hearing them.
• Claimed Adopted Heirship: Whether petitioner George Agcaoili, claiming to be the legally adopted son of Josefina Agcaoili nee Mata, should be included in the partition and his claimed heirship determined on the merits.

• Non-joinder of Indispensable Parties: Yes. The Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. and all other persons interested in the property are indispensable parties under Section 1, Rule 69; their non-joinder rendered the trial court’s actions null and void, and the proper remedy is remand to implead them, not dismissal.
• Due Process in Ordering Ejectment: Yes. The trial court violated due process when it motu proprio ordered the ejectment of the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. without summoning them or giving them their day in court.
• Claimed Adopted Heirship: Yes. Petitioner’s claim as a compulsory heir of Josefina Agcaoili nee Mata should not be excluded without determination; the remand should cover his claimed heirship.

• Non-joinder of Indispensable Parties: Section 1, Rule 69 requires that a person having the right to compel partition must join as defendants all other persons interested in the property. An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court’s action and without whom no final determination of the case can be had; the party’s interest in the subject matter and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties’ that his legal presence is an absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute that is effective, complete, or equitable. In an action for partition, all co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties, and an action for partition will not lie without their joinder. The Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. were compulsory heirs and interested in the estate, yet they were not impleaded. Their absence rendered all subsequent 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. The settled rule, however, is that non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal; the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. The Court cited Heirs of Juan M. Dinglasan vs. Ayala Corp., Heirs of Faustino and Genoveva Mesina vs. Heirs of Domingo Fian, Sr., and Divinagracia vs. Parilla. The correct course was to remand the case to the RTC for inclusion of the indispensable parties not impleaded and for disposition on the merits after they are given opportunity to present their own evidence.
• Due Process in Ordering Ejectment: The trial court motu proprio directed the ejectment of the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. from the 18,000-square-meter foreshore land claimed to be part of the estate. The occupants themselves, who were undisputed compulsory heirs to the estate, were never summoned, let alone given their day in court. The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction, to the damage and prejudice of the estate, the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr., and petitioner himself who claims to be a compulsory heir of Josefina Agcaoili nee Mata.
• Claimed Adopted Heirship: Petitioner consistently asserted that he is one of the compulsory heirs of Josefina Agcaoili nee Mata, being her legally adopted son. No one challenged this claim since the initiation of the complaint below up to the present. There was therefore no rhyme or reason to exclude him from the partition of the estate of which he claims to be a compulsory heir. Neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals delved into this matter although it is undeniably crucial in determining petitioner’s legal standing. The remand should accordingly cover the determination of petitioner’s claimed heirship.

• Indispensable Party — An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party’s interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his or her absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. The Court applied this definition to the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr., who were compulsory heirs and interested in the partition.
• Non-Joinder of Indispensable Parties — The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent 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. However, non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal; the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. The Court applied this by reversing and remanding the case for the impleading of the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. and all other interested persons.
• Partition Actions; Joinder of All Co-Heirs — In an action for partition, 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 said parties. Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court requires the plaintiff to join as defendants all other persons interested in the property. The Court applied this to the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. and all other persons interested in Lot No. 17566.
• Due Process in Judicial Proceedings — A court cannot motu proprio order the ejectment of persons who were never summoned or given their day in court. The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it directed the ejectment of the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. from the 18,000-square-meter foreshore land without due process.
• Claimed Heirship Must Be Determined — Where a party consistently claims to be a compulsory heir and no one has challenged that claim, the court should not exclude him from the partition without determining his legal standing. The Court held there was no reason to exclude petitioner George Agcaoili from the partition and directed the remand to cover the determination of his claimed heirship.

• "In an action for partition, 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." — This states the controlling rule on indispensable parties in partition actions and is the basis for reversing the trial court’s partition order.
• "The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent 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." — This defines the consequence of non-joinder and explains why the proceedings below could not stand even as to the parties who participated.
• "In non-joinder of indispensable parties, the case should not be dismissed. Instead, the non-party claimed to be indispensable should be impleaded." — This states the remedy for non-joinder and supports the Court’s order of remand rather than dismissal.
• "The trial court motu proprio directed the ejectment of the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. from the 18,000-square-meter foreshore land claimed to be a part of the estate in question. This the trial court did without due process." — This articulates the due process violation committed by the trial court when it ordered ejectment without impleading or hearing the affected heirs.

• Heirs of Juan M. Dinglasan vs. Ayala Corp., G.R. No. 204378, August 05, 2019 — Cited for the rule that non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal; the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable, and parties may be added by order of the court on motion of a party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action.
• Divinagracia vs. Parilla, 755 Phil. 783, 789 (2015) — Cited for the rule that the absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent 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; the proper remedy is to implead, not dismiss.
• Sepulveda, Sr. vs. Atty. Pelaez, 490 Phil. 710, 721 (2005) — Cited for the rule that in an action for partition, all co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties, and an action for partition will not lie without their joinder.
• Heirs of Faustino and Genoveva Mesina vs. Heirs of Domingo Fian, Sr. (citation not provided in the text) — Cited for the rule that non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal and that parties may be added at any stage; the Court remanded to implead all heirs.

• Section 1, Rule 69, Rules of Court — Provides that a person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so by setting forth in the 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. The Court applied this provision to hold that the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. and all other interested persons are indispensable parties whose non-joinder rendered the proceedings void and required remand for impleading.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Cited as the mode by which petitioner George Agcaoili invoked the Supreme Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction to review and reverse the assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals. The Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals and RTC decisions.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, J., and Lopez, J., concurred. Reyes, Jr., J., was on official leave.