This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-08-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Respondents could not be blamed if they did not raise this issue in their Answer because in an action for partition of real estate, it is the plaintiff who is mandated by the Rules to implead all the indispensable parties, considering that the absence of one such 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.[7] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In this jurisdiction, an action for partition is comprised of two phases: first, the trial court, after determining that a co-ownership in fact exists and that partition is proper, issues an order for partition; and, second, the trial court promulgates a decision confirming the sketch and subdivision of the properties submitted by the parties (if the parties reach an agreement) or by the appointed commissioners (if the parties fail to agree), as the case may be.[44] | |||||
|
2008-02-19 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, Panfilo erred in repeatedly believing that there was no necessity to implead respondents as defendants in Civil Case No. 15465 since, according to him, the necessary parties in a partition case are only the co-owners or co-partners in the inheritance of Francisco Abalos. On the contrary, the Rules of Court provides that in an action for partition, all other persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants.[47] Not only the co-heirs but also all persons claiming interests or rights in the property subject of partition are indispensable parties.[48] In the instant case, it is the responsibility of Panfilo as plaintiff in Civil Case No. 15465 to implead all indispensable parties, that is, not only Faustino and Danilo but also respondents in their capacity as vendees and donees of the subject fishponds. Without their presence in the suit the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality against them. Being strangers to the first case, they are not bound by the decision rendered therein; otherwise, they would be deprived of their constitutional right to due process.[49] | |||||