SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR.

and
ALLAN CHOACHUY. G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013.
The allegation of petitioners that they are not the owners of the subject
property, thus making them unable to remove the installed surveillance
cameras on the corporation’s building, cannot be upheld especially when the
corporation who is managed by the family of petitioners. They are thus
considered parties-in-interest in the present case.

HEIRS OF FAUSTINO MESINA and GENOVEVA S. MESINA, rep. by NORMAN

MESINA v. HEIRS OF DOMINGO FIAN, SR., rep. by THERESA FIAN YRAY, et
al. G.R. No. 201816, April 8, 2013
The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of
an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are
just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of
the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable
party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint
for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order. The remedy is to implead
the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
Living @ Sense, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. G.R. No. 193753.
September 26, 2012
The nature of the solidary obligation under the surety does not make one an
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 mandatorily either as plaintiffs or defendants. The presence of
indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, thus,
without their presence to a suit or proceeding, the 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.

Theodore And Nancy Ang, Represented By Eldrige Marvin B. Ceron, Vs.

Spouses Alan And Em Ang, Respondents. G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012
Applying the foregoing rule, it is clear that Atty. Aceron is not a real party in
interest in the case below as he does not stand to be benefited or injured by
any judgment therein. He was merely appointed by the petitioners as their
attorney-in-fact for the limited purpose of filing and prosecuting the
complaint against the respondents. Such appointment, however, does not
mean that he is subrogated into the rights of petitioners and ought to be
considered as a real party in interest.
El Hogar Filipino v. Seva, No. 36627, November 19, 1932
Where said parcels are the objects of one and the same transaction, the
venue is in the court where ANY of the provinces (places) where a parcel of
land is situated.