Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Relucio vs. Lopez
*
G.R.No.138497.January16,2002.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Roco, Buag, Kapunan & Migallosforpetitioner.
Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for private
respondent.
_______________
* FIRSTDIVISION.
579
VOL.373,JANUARY16,2002
Relucio vs. Lopez
PARDO,J.:
579
The Case
1
Thecaseisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari
seekingtoset
2
aside the decision of the Court of Appeals that denied a
petition for certiorari assailing the trial courts order
denyingpetitionersmotiontodismissthecaseagainsther
inclusionaspartydefendanttherein.
The Facts
Thefacts,asfoundbytheCourtofAppeals,areasfollows:
OnSeptember15,1993,hereinprivaterespondentAngelinaMejia
Lopez (plaintiff below) filed a petition for APPOINTMENT AS
SOLE ADMINISTRATRIX OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF
PROPERTIES, FORFEITURE, ETC., against defendant Alberto
Lopez and petitioner Imelda Relucio, docketed as Spec. Proc. M
3630, in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141. In the
petition, privaterespondent alleged that sometime in 1968,
defendant Lopez, who is legally married to the private respondent,
abandoned the latter and their four legitimate children; that he
arrogateduntohimselffullandexclusivecontrolandadministration
oftheconjugalproperties,spendingandusingthesameforhissole
gainandbenefittothetotalexclusionoftheprivaterespondentand
their four children; that defendant Lopez, after abandoning his
family,maintainedanillicitrelationshipandcohabitedwithherein
petitionersince1976.
It was further alleged that defendant Lopez and petitioner
Relucio, during their period of cohabitation since 1976, have
amassed a fortune consisting mainly of stockholdings in Lopez
owned or controlled corporations, residential, agricultural,
commercial lots, houses, apartments and buildings, cars and other
motorvehicles,bankaccountsandjewelry.Theseproperties,which
are in the names of defendant Lopez and petitioner Relucio singly
or jointly or their dummies and proxies, have been acquired
principally if not solely through the actual contribution of money,
property
_______________
1UnderRule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.
2 In CAG.R. SP No. 34398, promulgated on May 31, 1996, Petition,
580
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Relucio vs. Lopez
OnJune21,1994,petitionerfiledwiththeCourtofAppeals
a petition for certiorari
assailing the trial courts denial of
4
hermotiontodismiss.
On May 31, 1996, the Court
of Appeals promulgated a
5
decisiondenyingthepetition. OnJune26,1996,petitioner
filedamotion
_______________
3Rollo,pp.2839,atpp.2831.
4 Docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 34398. Petition, Annex A, CA Rollo,
pp.1819.
5Petition,AnnexA,Rollo,pp.2839.
581
VOL.373,JANUARY16,2002
581
forreconsideration. However,onApril6,1999,theCourtof
7
Appealsdeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.
8
Hence,thisappeal.
The Issues
1. Whether respondents petition for appointment as
sole administratrix of the conjugal property,
accounting, etc. against her husband Alberto J.
Lopez established a cause of action against
petitioner.
2. Whetherpetitionersinclusionaspartydefendantis
essential in the proceedings
for a complete
9
adjudicationofthecontroversy.
On September 15, 1999, the Court gave due course to the petition
(Rollo,pp.8687).
9Memorandum,Rollo,pp.113137,atp.120.
10Far
486,490(2000);Centeno v. Centeno,343SCRA153,160(2000).
582
582
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Relucio vs. Lopez
oftheobligationofthedefendanttotheplaintifffor
which the latter may
maintain an action for
11
recoveryofdamages.
respondentasadministratrixoftheconjugalpartnershipor
absolutecommunitypropertyarisingfromhermarriageto
Alberto J. Lopez. Petitioner is a complete stranger to this
causeofaction.Article128oftheFamilyCoderefersonlyto
spouses,towit:
Ifaspousewithoutjustcauseabandonstheotherorfailstocomply
withhisorherobligationstothefamily,theaggrievedspousemay
petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of
property, or for authority to be the sole administrator of the
conjugalpartnershipproperty
xxx
v. Centeno, supra,Note10.
12Racoma
v. Fortich,148APhil.454,460;39SCRA520(1971),citing
Amedo v. Rio,92Phil.214(1952).
13Dulay
v. Court of Appeals,243SCRA220(1995).
583
VOL.373,JANUARY16,2002
583
petitioner.
The respondent also sought support. Support cannot be
compelledfromastranger.
The action in Special Proceedings M3630 is, to use
respondent Angelina M. Lopez own words,
one by an
17
aggrieved wife against her husband. References to
petitionerinthecommonandspecificallegationsoffactin
thecomplaintaremerelyincidental,toset
_______________
14Rollo,pp.4262,atp.44.
15Ibid.,p.44.
16Kramer,
17Rollo,p.43.
584
584
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Relucio vs. Lopez
forthfactsandcircumstancesthatprovethecausesofaction
allegedagainstAlbertoJ.Lopez.
Finally,astothemoraldamages,respondentsclaimfor
moraldamagesisagainstAlbertoJ.Lopez,notpetitioner.
To sustain a cause of action for moral damages, the
complaint must have the character of an action for
interferencewithmaritalorfamilyrelationsundertheCivil
Code.
Arealpartyininterestisonewhostandstobebenefited
18
or injured by the judgment of the suit. In this case,
petitionerwouldnotbeaffectedbyanyjudgmentinSpecial
ProceedingsM3630.
Ifpetitionerisnotarealpartyininterest,shecannotbe
an indispensable party. An indispensable party is one
without
whom there can be no final determination of an
19
action. PetitionersparticipationinSpecialProceedingsM
3630 is not indispensable. Certainly, the trial court can
issue a judgment ordering Alberto J. Lopez to make an
accountingofhisconjugalpartnershipwithrespondent,and
givesupporttorespondentandtheirchildren,anddissolve
AlbertoJ.Lopezconjugalpartnershipwithrespondent,and
forfeitAlbertoJ.Lopezshareinpropertycoownedbyhim
andpetitioner.Suchjudgmentwouldbeperfectlyvalidand
enforceableagainstAlbertoJ.Lopez.
Nor can petitioner be a necessary party in Special
Proceedings M3630. A necessary party as one who is not
indispensable but who ought to be joined as party if
completereliefistobeaccordedthosealreadyparties,orfor
acompletedeterminationorsettlementoftheclaimsubject
20
of the action. In the context of her petition in the lower
court, respondent would be accorded complete relief if
Alberto J. Lopez were ordered to account for his alleged
conjugal partnership property with respondent, give
supporttorespondentandherchildren,turnoverhisshare
in the coownership with petitioner and dissolve his
conjugalpartnershiporabsolutecommunitypropertywith
respondent.
_______________
18
585
VOL.373,JANUARY16,2002
585
The Judgment
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition
and
21
REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals. The
Court DISMISSES Special Proceedings M3630 of the
Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 141 as against
petitioner.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and
YnaresSantiago, JJ.,concur.
Petition granted, judgment reversed.
Note.A complaint is sufficient if it contains sufficient
notice of the cause of action even though the allegations
may be vague or indefinite. (Cometa vs. Court of Appeals,
301SCRA459[1999])
o0o