Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 168979 2013-12-02	REBECCA PACAÑA-CONTRERAS v. ROVILA WATER SUPPLY BRION, J.
Jurisprudence on the procedural consequence of the inclusion or non-inclusion of an indispensable party is divided in our jurisdiction. Due to the non-inclusion of indispensable parties, the Court dismissed the case in Lucman v. Malawi, et al.[59] and Go v. Distinction Properties Development Construction, Inc.,[60] while in Casals, et al. v. Tayud Golf and Country Club et al.,[61] the Court annulled the judgment which was rendered without the inclusion of the indispensable parties.
	GR No. 189486 2012-09-05	SIMNY G. GUY v. GILBERT G. GUY PEREZ, J.
This was our pronouncements in Servicewide Specialists Inc. v. CA,[37] Arcelona v. CA,[38] and Casals v. Tayud Golf and Country Club, Inc.[39]
	GR No. 169157 2011-11-14	SPS. BENJAMIN AND NORMA GARCIA v. ESTER GARCIA PERALTA, J.
x x x [I]ndispensable parties [are] parties-in-interests without whom there can be no final determination of an action. As such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires, of course, the joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. x x x[47]