Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TRAVEL WIDE ASSOCIATED SALES v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 178529 2009-09-04	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. HEIRS OF ANTONIO C. TIU CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner argues, in the main, that as respondents are not the real parties in interest, their complaint states no cause of action. Citing Travel Wide Associated, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[19] petitioner adds that since the party in interest is respondents' mother but the complaint is not brought in her name, respondents' complaint states no cause of action.
	GR No. 164244 2009-07-30	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. REYNALDO MAGAT CARPIO, J.
Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest." To qualify a person to be a real party in interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced.[12] A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to remedies under the suit. [13]
	GR NO. 160347 2006-11-29	ARCADIO v. HEIRS OF QUIRINO A. DE GUZMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The spouses Carandang claim that, since three of the four checks used to pay their stock subscriptions were issued in the name of Milagros de Guzman, the latter should be considered an indispensable party. Being such, the spouses Carandang claim, the failure to join Mrs. de Guzman as a party-plaintiff should cause the dismissal of the action because "(i)f a suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action."[14]