Lawyerly

GR No. 173297

2013-03-06

STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY v. TOMAS CUENCA

BERSAMIN, J.

To ensure the observance of the mandate of the Constitution, Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires that unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.[29] Under the same rule, a real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or one who is entitled to the avails of the suit. Accordingly, a person , to be a real party in interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, should appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced, that is, his interest must be a present substantial interest, not a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.[30] Where the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the ground for the motion to dismiss is lack of cause of action.[31] The reason for this is that the courts ought not to pass upon questions not derived from any actual controversy. Truly, a person having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action.[32] Nor does a court acquire jurisdiction over a case where the real party in interest is not present or impleaded.

GR No. 158298

2010-08-11

ISIDRO ABLAZA v. REPUBLIC

BERSAMIN, J.

It is clarified, however, that the absence of a provision in the old and new Civil Codes cannot be construed as giving a license to just any person to bring an action to declare the absolute nullity of a marriage. According to Carlos v. Sandoval,[14] the plaintiff must still be the party who stands to be benefited by the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest.[15] Thus, only the party who can demonstrate a "proper interest" can file the action.[16] Interest within the meaning of the rule means material interest, or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved or a mere incidental interest. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.[17]

GR No. 164703

2010-05-04

ALLAN C. GO v. MORTIMER F. CORDERO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

First, on the issue of whether the case had been filed by the real party-in-interest as required by Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which defines such party as the one (1) to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. The purposes of this provision are: 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.[31] A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action.[32]

GR NO. 156660

2009-08-24

ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS' ASSOCIATION v. CA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We held in Oco v. Limbaring[14] that: As applied to the present case, this provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Necessarily, the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.

GR No. 164244

2009-07-30

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. REYNALDO MAGAT

CARPIO, J.

Interest within the meaning of the Rules refers to material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case.[14] One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff (or petitioner) in an action.[15]

GR No. 179922

2008-12-16

JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS v. FELICIDAD SANDOVAL

REYES, R.T., J.

We respond in the negative. The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear to be the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.[25] Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest. For it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.[26]

GR Nos. 151983-84

2008-07-31

JOSE MAX S. ORTIZ v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The afore-quoted rule has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Necessarily, the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right or title to or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.[45]

GR No. 175020

2007-10-04

RURAL BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES v. MA. ROSARIO TANGHAL-SALVAÑA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court in Oco v. Limbaring,[10] expounded on the said provision as follows:As applied to the present case, this provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Necessarily, the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.

GR NO. 167812

2006-12-19

JESUS M. GOZUN v. JOSE TEOFILO T. MERCADO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In Oco v. Limbaring,[37] this Court ruled:The parties to a contract are the real parties in interest in an action upon it, as consistently held by the Court. Only the contracting parties are bound by the stipulations in the contract; they are the ones who would benefit from and could violate it. Thus, one who is not a party to a contract, and for whose benefit it was not expressly made, cannot maintain an action on it. One cannot do so, even if the contract performed by the contracting parties would incidentally inure to one's benefit.[38] (Underscoring supplied) In light thereof, petitioner is the real party in interest in this case. The trial court's findings on the matter were affirmed by the appellate court.[39] It erred, however, in not declaring petitioner as a real party in interest insofar as recovery of the cost of campaign materials made by petitioner's mother and sister are concerned, upon the wrong notion that they should have been, but were not, impleaded as plaintiffs.

GR NO. 150711

2006-08-10

CALTEX v. PNOC SHIPPING

CARPIO, J.

As an exception, parties who have not taken part in a contract may show that they have a real interest affected by its performance or annulment. In other words, those who are not principally or subsidiarily obligated in a contract, in which they had no intervention, may show their detriment that could result from it. x x x[19] (Emphasis supplied)

	GR No. 173297 2013-03-06	STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY v. TOMAS CUENCA BERSAMIN, J.
To ensure the observance of the mandate of the Constitution, Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires that unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.[29] Under the same rule, a real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or one who is entitled to the avails of the suit. Accordingly, a person , to be a real party in interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, should appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced, that is, his interest must be a present substantial interest, not a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.[30] Where the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the ground for the motion to dismiss is lack of cause of action.[31] The reason for this is that the courts ought not to pass upon questions not derived from any actual controversy. Truly, a person having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action.[32] Nor does a court acquire jurisdiction over a case where the real party in interest is not present or impleaded.
	GR No. 158298 2010-08-11	ISIDRO ABLAZA v. REPUBLIC BERSAMIN, J.
It is clarified, however, that the absence of a provision in the old and new Civil Codes cannot be construed as giving a license to just any person to bring an action to declare the absolute nullity of a marriage. According to Carlos v. Sandoval,[14] the plaintiff must still be the party who stands to be benefited by the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest.[15] Thus, only the party who can demonstrate a "proper interest" can file the action.[16] Interest within the meaning of the rule means material interest, or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved or a mere incidental interest. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.[17]
	GR No. 164703 2010-05-04	ALLAN C. GO v. MORTIMER F. CORDERO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
First, on the issue of whether the case had been filed by the real party-in-interest as required by Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which defines such party as the one (1) to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. The purposes of this provision are: 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.[31] A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action.[32]
	GR NO. 156660 2009-08-24	ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS' ASSOCIATION v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We held in Oco v. Limbaring[14] that: As applied to the present case, this provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Necessarily, the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.
	GR No. 164244 2009-07-30	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. REYNALDO MAGAT CARPIO, J.
Interest within the meaning of the Rules refers to material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case.[14] One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff (or petitioner) in an action.[15]
	GR No. 179922 2008-12-16	JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS v. FELICIDAD SANDOVAL REYES, R.T., J.
We respond in the negative. The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear to be the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.[25] Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest. For it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.[26]
	GR Nos. 151983-84 2008-07-31	JOSE MAX S. ORTIZ v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The afore-quoted rule has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Necessarily, the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right or title to or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.[45]
	GR No. 175020 2007-10-04	RURAL BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES v. MA. ROSARIO TANGHAL-SALVAÑA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court in Oco v. Limbaring,[10] expounded on the said provision as follows:As applied to the present case, this provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Necessarily, the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.
	GR NO. 167812 2006-12-19	JESUS M. GOZUN v. JOSE TEOFILO T. MERCADO CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Oco v. Limbaring,[37] this Court ruled:The parties to a contract are the real parties in interest in an action upon it, as consistently held by the Court. Only the contracting parties are bound by the stipulations in the contract; they are the ones who would benefit from and could violate it. Thus, one who is not a party to a contract, and for whose benefit it was not expressly made, cannot maintain an action on it. One cannot do so, even if the contract performed by the contracting parties would incidentally inure to one's benefit.[38] (Underscoring supplied) In light thereof, petitioner is the real party in interest in this case. The trial court's findings on the matter were affirmed by the appellate court.[39] It erred, however, in not declaring petitioner as a real party in interest insofar as recovery of the cost of campaign materials made by petitioner's mother and sister are concerned, upon the wrong notion that they should have been, but were not, impleaded as plaintiffs.
	GR NO. 150711 2006-08-10	CALTEX v. PNOC SHIPPING CARPIO, J.
As an exception, parties who have not taken part in a contract may show that they have a real interest affected by its performance or annulment. In other words, those who are not principally or subsidiarily obligated in a contract, in which they had no intervention, may show their detriment that could result from it. x x x[19] (Emphasis supplied)

SPS. ANT v. VICTOR LIMBARING