Plasabas v.

Court of
Appeals, Lumen and
Aunzo
G.R. No. 166519
March 31, 2009
Nachura, J.
Facts
• Plasabas filed a complaint for recovery of title to property
with damages praying that
• the judgement be rendered confirming her rights and legal title to
the subject property and
• ordering the Lumen and Aunzo to vacate and pay damages
• Lumen and Aunzo raised that the case should have been
terminated at inception because Plasabas failed to implead
indispensable parties which are her co-owners:
• Jose, Victor, and Victoria
Facts
• Plasabas acknowledged during the trial that the property is co-
owned with her siblings and that Plasabas has been authorized by
the co-owners to pursue the case on their behalf.
• Trial Court without ruling on the merits dismissed the case without
prejudice. It held that the brothers and sisters of Plasabas are
INDISPENSABLE parties and where an indispensable party is not
before the Court the action should be dismissed.
• The same was upheld by the Court of Appeals holding that non-
joinder of indispensable parties violates due process.
Whether or not the case
should be dismissed for
failure to implead the
indispensable parties
NO, the case should NOT be dismissed because of
Article 487 of the Civil Code.
Art 487 of the Civil Code
• provides that any one of the co-owners may bring an action for
ejectment;
• covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession, including
an accion publiciana and a reivindicatory action.
• A co-owner may file suit without necessarily joining all the other co-
owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for
the benefit of all
• Any judgment of the court in favor of the plaintiff will benefit the
other co-owners, but if the judgment is adverse, the same cannot
prejudice the rights of the unimpleaded co-owners
Art 487 of the Civil Code
• The only exception to this rule is when the action is for the benefit of
the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and is, thus,
entitled to the possession thereof. In such a case, the action will not
prosper unless the plaintiff impleads the other co-owners who are
indispensable parties
In this case
• Thus, Plasabas, in her complaint, does not have to implead his co-
owners as parties.
• Here, the allegation of Plasabas in their complaint that she is the sole
owner of the property in litigation is immaterial, considering that she
acknowledged during the trial that the property is co-owned by her
and her siblings, and that she has been authorized by the co-owners
to pursue the case on their behalf.
• Again, Impleading the other co-owners is, therefore, not mandatory,
because, as mentioned earlier, the suit is deemed to be instituted for
the benefit of all.
Proper Procedure
• 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.
Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or
on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or at such times as
are just.
• If there is refusal to implead an indispensable party despite the order
of the court then the Court may dismiss complaint/petition for the
plaintiff’s/petitioner's failure to comply therewith