This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, an indispensable party is a party-in-interest, without whom there can be no final determination of an action. The interests of such indispensable party in the subject matter of the suit and the relief are so bound with those of the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. As a rule, an indispensable party's interest in the subject matter is such that a complete and efficient determination of the equities and rights of the parties is not possible if he is not joined.[74] | |||||
|
2008-07-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| One glaring factor that strikes the mind of this Court is the fact that petitioners did not implead JOSEFINA, the seller of the subject landholding, in any of their Complaints filed below. JOSEFINA, who is a party[49] to the said contract of sale, is an indispensable party. An indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest. [50] As a party to the contract of sale, which petitioners seek to declare voided and annulled, there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court, a determination that is effective, complete, or equitable[51] without impleading JOSEFINA; hence, rendering their action dismissible. From the beginning, this was a legal hindrance which petitioners were not able to successfully overcome. It is hornbook doctrine that the joinder of all indispensable parties must be made under any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of the judicial power.[52] When an indispensable party is not before the court, the action should be dismissed.[53] | |||||