ROGER V.
The other co-
NAVARRO vs. HON.
JOSE L. ESCOBIDO
Posted on March 28, 2013 by winnieclaire
tandard
FACTS: Respondent Karen T. Go filed two
complaints before the RTC for replevin and/or
sum of money with damages against Navarro. In
these complaints, Karen Go prayed that the
RTC issue writs of replevin for the seizure of two
(2) motor vehicles in Navarros possession. In
his Answers, Navarro alleged as a special
affirmative defense that the two complaints
stated no cause of action, since Karen Go was
not a party to the Lease Agreements with Option
to Purchase (collectively, the lease agreements)
the actionable documents on which the
complaints were based. RTC dismissed the
case but set aside the dismissal on the
presumption that Glenn Gos (husband) leasing
business is a conjugal property and thus ordered
Karen Go to file a motion for the inclusion of
Glenn Go as co-plaintiff as per Rule 4, Section 3
of the Rules of Court. Navarro filed a petition for
certiorari with the CA. According to Navarro, a
complaint which failed to state a cause of action
could not be converted into one with a cause of
action by mere amendment or supplemental
pleading. CA denied petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not Karen Go is a real party
in interest.
HELD: YES. Karen Go is the registered owner of
the business name Kargo Enterprises, as the
registered owner of Kargo Enterprises, Karen
Go is the party who will directly benefit from or
be injured by a judgment in this case. Thus,
contrary to Navarros contention, Karen Go is
the real party-in-interest, and it is legally
incorrect to say that her Complaint does not
state a cause of action because her name did
not appear in the Lease Agreement that her
husband signed in behalf of Kargo Enterprises.
Glenn and Karen Go are effectively co-owners
of Kargo Enterprises and the properties
registered under this name; hence, both have an
equal right to seek possession of these
properties. Therefore, only one of the co-
owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit
for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an
indispensable party thereto.
owners are not indispensable parties. They are
not even necessary parties, for a complete relief
can be accorded in the suit even without their
participation, since the suit is presumed to have
been filed for the benefit of all co-owners.
We hold that since Glenn Go is not strictly an
indispensable party in the action to recover
possession of the leased vehicles, he only
needs to be impleaded as a pro-forma party to
the suit, based on Section 4, Rule 4 of the
Rules, which states:
Section 4.Spouses as parties. Husband and
wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as
provided by law.
Even assuming that Glenn Go is an
indispensable party to the action, misjoinder or
non-joinder of indispensable parties in a
complaint is not a ground for dismissal of action
as per Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court.
ROSENDO BACALSO, et al.
v. MAXIMO PADIGOS, et al.
552 SCRA 185 (2008)
It is an enshrined rule that even
a registered owner may be barred
from recovering possession of
property by virtue of laches
Padigos et.al. filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu
City a complaint against Bacalso et
al. for quieting of title, declaration
of nullity of documents, recover of
possession, and damages.
A parcel of land (the lot) located in
Cebu was registered in the name of
thirteen (13) co-owners to
which Maximo Padigos, et al are all
heirs. Rosendo Bacalso et al
occupied the disputed land for a
couple of decades in which they
turned it into farmland. Padigos et
al. alleged that Rosendo Bacalso et
al., heirs of Alipio Bacalso Sr.
(Alipio, Sr.), secured
a fraudulent Tax Declaration
covering the disputedpotions of the
lot without any legal basis. In their
answer, Bacalso et. al. claimed that
their father Alipio, Sr. bought
shares corresponding to some of the
13 co-owners via deed of
sale decades ago. Alipio, Sr. only
failed to register the land to his
name but subsequently occupied
the land and passed it on to his
heirs.
Bacalso et. al also alleged that even
if Padigos et als claim over the land
is valid, the action to recover is
barred by laches since Padigos et al
did not claim the land at the earliest
possible time. After trial, RTC ruled
in favor of Padigos et. al. Bacalso et.
al. appealed. The Court of
Appeals found the deed of sale valid
Bacalso et. al s property and also
cited laches as a means of loosing of
a right over the property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Padigos et. al.s
claim is barred by laches
HELD:
Having failed to establish their
claim by preponderance of
evidence, Padigos et.als action for
quieting of title, declaration of
nullity of documents, recovery of
possession, and damages must fail.
Padigos et. al. lost the right of
action to the property by laches
the negligence or omission to assert
a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the
party entitled to assert it has either
abandoned it or declined to assert
it. While, by express provision of
law, no title to registered land in
derogation of that of
the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse
possession, it is an enshrined rule
that even a registered owner may be
barred from recovering possession
of property by virtue of laches.
Upon the other hand, Bacalso et. al
have been vigilant in protecting
their rights over the lot, which their
predecessor-in-interest Alipio, Sr.
had declared in his name for tax
purposes as early as 1960, and for
which he had been paying taxes
until his death in 1994, by
continuing to pay the taxes thereon.