Arcelona Et.Al. Vs. Court Of Appeals G.R. No. G.R. No. 102900.

October 2, 1997

Doctrine: A co-owner cannot maintain an action in ejectment without joining all the other co-owners. All
co-owners in an action for security of tenure of a tenant must be impleaded. Failure of such will bar the
court from making a final adjudication.

Facts: Farnacio filed an action for peaceful possession, maintenance of security of tenure and damages
against three fishpond co-owners Pacita Arcelona-Olanday, Maria Arcelona-Arellano and Natividad
Arcelona-Cruz. The case was intended to maintain him as tenant of the fishpond. 3 other co-owners,
petitioners herein, are naturalized Americans, residing in California, USA. Judgment was rendered by the
trial declaring Farnacio as tenant-caretaker, which was affirmed by the IAC and the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for annulment of said judgment with the Court of Appeals
claiming that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons. They claimed that being co-
owners, they should all be impleaded as indispensable parties. The CA rendered judgment dismissing
the petition on the ground of petitioners' failure to allege the sole and only ground of extrinsic fraud in
their petition for annulment of judgment.

Issue: WON the final judgment may be annulled for lack of jurisdiction (over the subject matter and/or
over the person of indispensable parties) and denial of due process?

Ruling: YES. Formerly, Article 487 of the old Civil Code provided that "any one of the co-owners may
bring an action in ejectment." It was subsequently held, however, that a co-owner could not maintain an
action in ejectment without joining all the other co-owners. Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court,
defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of
an action. It is logical that a tenant, in an action to establish his status as such, must implead all the pro-
indiviso co-owners; in failing to do so, there can be no final determination of the action. In other words,
a tenant who fails to implead all the co-owners cannot establish with finality his tenancy over the entire
co-owned land. Co-owners in an action for the security of tenure of a tenant are encompassed within
the definition of indispensable parties; thus, all of them must be impleaded.

In the case at bar, petitioners are co-owners of a fishpond. It is impossible to pinpoint which specific
portion of the property is owned by Olanday, et al. and which portion belongs to petitioners. Thus, it is
not possible to show over which portion the tenancy relation of Farnacio has been established. Indeed,
petitioners should have been properly impleaded as indispensable parties. Obviously, the failure to
implead petitioners barred the lower court from making a final adjudication. Without the presence of
indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, a judgment therein cannot attain finality. The Court,
through former Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan, held that a person who was not impleaded in the
complaint cannot be bound by the decision rendered therein, for no man shall be affected by a
proceeding in which he is a stranger.