This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| An indispensable party is defined as a party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action.[68] Hernita, et al. are voluntary heirs to ten percent of the free portion of Basilia's estate.[69] In fact, the complaint filed by Hernita, et al. in Civil Case No. 65327 reads:III. Causes of Action | |||||
|
2015-04-22 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, it must be stressed that the failure to implead any indispensable party to a suit does not necessarily result in the outright dismissal of the complaint. In Heirs of Mesina v. Heirs of Fian, Sr.[39] the Court definitively explained that in instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead them and not to dismiss the case: The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs failure to comply with the order. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.[40] (Emphases and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| However, the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint on account of Santiago's failure to implead all the indispensable parties in his complaint. In Heirs of Mesina v. Heirs of Fian, Sr.,[39] the Court definitively explained that in instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead them and not to dismiss the case, to wit: The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the order. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. x x x[40] (Underscoring supplied; emphases in the original) | |||||
|
2015-02-11 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Further, it bears pointing out that while the RTC dismissed the case impliedly by reason of respondents' repeated failure to appear in court and prosecute their case, it also inaccurately expressed the view that such dismissal may properly be taken as its favorable action on petitioner's standing motion to dismiss. The Court takes note, however, that the cited motion to dismiss was not premised on the respondents' failure to prosecute their case but on the alleged failure of the complaint to state a cause of action.[35] Fundamental is the rule that a motion to dismiss grounded on failure to state a cause of action refers only to the insufficiency of the pleading. A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) the legal right of the plaintiff; (b) the correlative obligation of the defendant; and (c) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said right.[36] If these elements are present such that the allegations furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed.[37] In this case, the Court finds that the subject complaint sufficiently averred actual fraud on the part of petitioner in procuring her title to the subject property to the prejudice of respondents who claim to have acquired it first. Thus, outright dismissal for failure to state a cause of action was improper. | |||||