Pascual vs. Robles

A party who stands to be injured or benefited by the outcome of a petition for certiorari is an indispensable party who must be impleaded as a private respondent under Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal, the remedy being to order their impleading.

The case arises from a special proceeding for the declaration of heirship and settlement of the intestate estates of Hermogenes Rodriguez, Antonio Rodriguez, Macario J. Rodriguez, Delfin Rodriguez, and Consuelo M. Rodriguez, docketed as Special Proceeding No. IR-1110 before the RTC of Iriga City, Branch 34. Henry F. Rodriguez, Certeza F. Rodriguez, and Rosalina R. Pellosis filed the petition claiming to be the sole surviving heirs of Antonio and, through Antonio's alleged fraternal relationship with Hermogenes, of Hermogenes as well. Multiple groups of oppositors, including Jaime M. Robles, entered appearances asserting competing claims to the estate of Hermogenes. The proceeding spanned over two decades and generated multiple appellate proceedings, including G.R. No. 168648, in which an entry of judgment was issued on November 10, 2005.

On September 14, 1989, Henry F. Rodriguez, Certeza F. Rodriguez, and Rosalina R. Pellosis filed a petition for Declaration of Heirship and Appointment of Administrator and Settlement of the Estates of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez and Antonio Rodriguez before the RTC of Iriga City, docketed as Special Proceeding No. IR-1110. They alleged that they were the great grandchildren of Antonio — Henry and Certeza being the surviving children of Delfin M. Rodriguez who died on February 8, 1981, and Rosalina being the surviving heir of Consuelo M. Rodriguez — and that Delfin and Consuelo were the heirs of Macario J. Rodriguez, who died in 1976, who in turn was the heir of Antonio along with Flora Rodriguez, who died without issue in 1960. Their claim to the estate of Hermogenes Rodriguez, a former gobernadorcillo who died in 1910 without issue, rested on the allegation that Antonio and Hermogenes were brothers, leaving Antonio as Hermogenes' sole heir.

At the initial hearing on November 14, 1989, no one appeared to oppose the petition. The RTC entered a general default against the whole world, except the Republic of the Philippines, and referred the reception of evidence to a commissioner. The commissioner found that Henry, Certeza, and Rosalina were grandchildren in the direct line of Antonio but required additional evidence to establish the fraternal relationship between Antonio and Hermogenes. Taking its cue from the commissioner's report, the RTC rendered a Partial Judgment on May 31, 1990, declaring the three as heirs in the direct descending line of Antonio, Macario, and Delfin, and appointing Henry as regular administrator of the estates of Delfin, Macario, and Antonio, and as special administrator of the estate of Hermogenes. Henry posted the bond and took his oath of office.

Thereafter, six groups of oppositors entered their appearances: the group of Judith Rodriguez, the group of Carola Favila-Santos, Jaime Robles, Florencia Rodriguez, Victoria Rodriguez, and Bienvenido Rodriguez. Only the Judith Rodriguez group contested the estate of Antonio; the rest, including Robles, filed opposing claims to the estate of Hermogenes. Robles prayed that he be appointed regular administrator of the estates of Antonio and Hermogenes and be allowed to sell a portion of land included in Hermogenes' estate covered by OCT No. 12022 located at Barrio Manggahan, Pasig, Rizal. After hearing on Robles' application, the RTC issued an Order on December 15, 1994 declaring him an heir and next of kin of Hermogenes and appointing him regular administrator of the entire estate, with authority to sell the OCT No. 12022 property.

On April 27, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision declaring Carola Favila-Santos and her co-heirs as heirs in the direct descending line of Hermogenes and reiterating its earlier ruling that Henry, Certeza, and Rosalina were heirs of Antonio; the decision dismissed the oppositions of Robles, Victoria Rodriguez, Bienvenido Rodriguez, and Florencia Rodriguez for failure to substantiate their claims. On August 13, 1999, the RTC issued an Amended Decision reversing its finding as to Carola Favila-Santos — now finding her group unrelated to Hermogenes — and instead declaring Henry, Certeza, and Rosalina as heirs of Hermogenes. The amended decision reaffirmed the dismissal of the oppositions of Robles and the other oppositors.

Robles sought to appeal the August 13, 1999 Amended Decision by filing a notice of appeal on October 12, 1999, but the RTC denied the appeal in its Order dated November 22, 1999 for his failure to file a record on appeal, as required in special proceedings. Robles filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which referred the petition to the CA on February 14, 2000. On April 16, 2002, the CA rendered judgment annulling the RTC's August 13, 1999 Amended Decision. Henry Rodriguez's group moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied on January 21, 2004; they did not appeal. Robles separately appealed a portion of the CA Decision to the Supreme Court, which denied his petition on August 1, 2005; the denial became final and executory on November 10, 2005.

On May 13, 2008, Rene B. Pascual filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, impleading only the CA and the RTC as respondents — Robles' name appeared in the caption but he was never served with the petition or the memorandum, nor required to file a comment. On December 4, 2009, the Court rendered a Decision nullifying the CA's April 16, 2002 Decision and the RTC's February 27, 2007 Order, and reinstating the RTC's August 13, 1999 Amended Decision, on the ground that Robles' appeal was not perfected because he filed a notice of appeal instead of a record on appeal, causing the amended decision to lapse into finality, and that it was error for the CA to have entertained the case. Robles filed a Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration asserting that he was a real party-in-interest who was never impleaded, served, or given the opportunity to be heard.

• Legal Standing of Robles: Petitioner contended that Robles has no legal standing to participate in the instant petition, arguing that in an original action for certiorari the parties are the aggrieved party against the lower court and the prevailing party.
• Robles Not a Prevailing Party: Petitioner claimed that Robles was never impleaded because he was not the prevailing party in the assailed CA Decision or the questioned RTC Order.
• Clerical Error: Petitioner averred that the inclusion of Robles' name as respondent in the caption of the petition was a result of a clerical error, probably brought about by the numerous cases filed with the Court involving Robles and the subject estate.

• Real Party-in-Interest: Robles argued that he is a real party-in-interest who stands to be adversely affected or benefited by the judgment in the instant case.
• Denial of Due Process: Robles contended that the failure of service upon him of a copy of the petition and petitioner's memorandum, and the fact that he was not required or given the opportunity to file his comment or answer, constitutes a clear denial of his right to due process, in violation of the Rules of Court and the Constitution.
• Finality of CA Decision: Robles argued that the CA Decision dated April 16, 2002 had already attained finality by way of an entry of judgment issued by the Supreme Court on November 10, 2005 in G.R. No. 168648, and that the circumstances justified relaxation of the rules on perfection of appeal and the rule that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
• Reinstatement of Earlier Order: Robles prayed for the reinstatement of the December 15, 1994 RTC Order declaring him as the only forced heir and next of kin of Hermogenes Rodriguez.

• Indispensable Party: Whether Robles is an indispensable party who should have been impleaded as respondent in the petition for certiorari.
• Remedy for Non-Joinder: Whether the appropriate remedy for the non-joinder of an indispensable party is to set aside the decision and allow the absent party to file his comment, rather than to dismiss the petition.

• Indispensable Party: Yes. Robles is an indispensable party because he stands to be injured or benefited by the outcome of the petition and has an interest in sustaining the assailed CA Decision, which would benefit him; his non-inclusion renders the petition for certiorari defective under Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
• Remedy for Non-Joinder: Yes. The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal; the remedy is to implead the non-party, and in the interest of fair play the Court set aside its decision and directed that Robles be furnished a copy of the petition and allowed to file his comment.

• Indispensable Party: Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court requires that in a petition for certiorari relating to the acts or omissions of a court or judge, the petitioner shall join as private respondent the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court. Robles is interested in sustaining the CA Decision because he would benefit from it — the CA had annulled the RTC's August 13, 1999 Amended Decision, which had dismissed Robles' claim to the estate of Hermogenes. An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action; the joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory and necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. Without the presence of indispensable parties, judgment cannot attain real finality, and all subsequent actions of the court are null and void for want of authority to act. Robles has an interest in the controversy such that a final decree would necessarily affect his rights, and the courts cannot proceed without his presence. Petitioner committed a mistake in failing to implead Robles as respondent.
• Remedy for Non-Joinder: The rule is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action. 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. Only if a petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party despite an order of the court may the court dismiss the petition. Accordingly, in the interest of fair play, the Court found it proper to set aside its December 4, 2009 Decision and allow Robles to file his comment on the petition.

• Indispensable Party — An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiff or defendant. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory; their presence is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. Without indispensable parties, judgment cannot attain real finality, and all subsequent actions of the court are null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Robles, who stood to be benefited by sustaining the CA Decision annulling the RTC's amended decision that dismissed his heirship claim, was an indispensable party whose non-inclusion rendered the certiorari petition defective.
• Non-Joinder of Indispensable Parties — The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable; parties may be added by order of the court on motion of a party or on the court's own initiative at any stage of the action. If the petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the court's order, the court may dismiss the complaint or petition. The Court applied this principle by setting aside its decision and directing that Robles be furnished a copy of the petition and allowed to file his comment, rather than dismissing the petition outright.

• "An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is 'the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case.' Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot attain real finality. 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 passage, quoted from Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. vs. Dela Cruz, sets forth the canonical formulation of the indispensable party doctrine and supplies the analytical foundation for the Court's ruling that Robles' non-inclusion was fatal to the petition's validity.

• "The rule is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable." — This states the controlling rule on the consequence of non-joinder, distinguishing it from situations warranting outright dismissal and establishing the corrective remedy the Court applied.

• "In the case at bar, Robles is an indispensable party. He stands to be injured or benefited by the outcome of the petition. He has an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect his rights, such that the courts cannot proceed without his presence." — This is the ratio decidendi applying the indispensable party doctrine to the facts, establishing that a party who benefits from the assailed judgment has a sufficient interest to qualify as indispensable.

• Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 166302, July 28, 2005 — Followed as controlling authority for the definition and mandatory nature of indispensable parties, and for the proposition that their absence renders subsequent court actions null and void.
• Tay Chun Suy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 91004-05, August 20, 1992 — Cited for the principle that courts cannot proceed without the presence of indispensable parties, as their interest in the controversy is such that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights.
• Plasabas vs. CA, G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009 — Cited among several cases for the settled rule that non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal and that the remedy is to implead the absent party.

• Section 5, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides that in a petition for certiorari relating to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, or other tribunal, the petitioner shall join as private respondent the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court. The Court applied this provision to hold that Robles, who would benefit from sustaining the CA Decision, should have been impleaded as private respondent; his non-inclusion rendered the petition defective.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (Chairperson), Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza concurred.