SECONDDIVISION

JOSEPHINEMARMO,
*
NESTORESGUERRA,
DANILODELPILARand
MARISADELPILAR,
Petitioners,

versus

MOISESO.ANACAY,
Respondent.
G.R.No.182585

Present:

CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BRION,
DELCASTILLO,and
ABAD,JJ.

Promulgated:

November27,2009

xx
DECISION

BRION,J.:

BeforeusisthePetitionforReviewonCertiorari,
[1]

filedbythespousesJosephineMarmoandNestorEsguerraandthespousesDanilodelPilarandMarisadelPilar(collectively,the
petitioners),toreverseandsetasidetheDecision
[2]
datedDecember28,2007andtheResolution
[3]
datedApril11,2008oftheFormerSpecialEleventhDivisionoftheCourtofAppeals
(CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 94673. The assailed CA Decision dismissed the petitioners petition for certiorari challenging the Orders dated March 14, 2006
[4]
and May 8, 2006
[5]
of the
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch90,Dasmarias,CaviteinCivilCaseNo.291903,whiletheassailedCAResolutiondeniedthepetitionersmotionforreconsideration.

FACTUALBACKGROUND

Thefactsofthecase,asgatheredfromthepartiespleadings,arebrieflysummarizedbelow:

OnSeptember16,2003,respondentMoisesO.AnacayfiledacaseforAnnulmentofSale,RecoveryofTitlewithDamagesagainstthepetitioners
[6]
andtheRegisterofDeedsofthe
ProvinceofCavite,docketedasCivilCaseNo.291903.
[7]
Thecomplaintstates,amongothers,that:therespondentisthebonafidecoowner,togetherwithhiswife,GloriaP.Anacay(now
deceased),ofa50squaremeterparceloflandandthehousebuiltthereon,locatedatBlk.54,Lot9,RegencyHomes,Brgy.Malinta,Dasmarias,Cavite,coveredbyTransferCertificateof
Title(TCT) No. T815595 of the Register of Deeds of Cavite they authorized petitioner Josephine to sell the subject property petitioner Josephine sold the subject property to petitioner
DaniloforP520,000.00,payableinmonthlyinstallmentsofP8,667.00fromMay2001toJune2006petitionerDanilodefaultedinhisinstallmentpaymentsfromDecember2002onwards
therespondentsubsequentlydiscoveredthatTCTNo.815595hadbeencancelledandTCTNo.T972424wasissuedinpetitionerJosephinesnamebyvirtueofafalsifiedDeedofAbsolute
SaledatedSeptember20,2001petitionerJosephinesubsequentlytransferredhertitletopetitionerDaniloTCTNo.T972424wascancelledandTCTNo.T991035wasissuedinpetitioner
Danilosname.TherespondentsoughttheannulmentoftheDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedSeptember20,2001andthecancellationofTCTNo.T991035inthealternative,hedemanded
petitionerDanilospaymentofthebalanceofP347,000.00withinterestfromDecember2002,andthepaymentofmoraldamages,attorneysfees,andcostofsuit.

InherAnswer,petitionerJosephineaverred,amongothers,thattherespondentschildren,ascoownersofthesubjectproperty,shouldhavebeenincludedasplaintiffsbecausetheyare
indispensableparties.
[8]

PetitionerDaniloechoedpetitionerJosephinessubmissioninhisAnswer.
[9]

Followingthepretrialconference,thepetitionersfiledaMotiontoDismissthecasefortherespondentsfailuretoincludehischildrenasindispensableparties.
[10]

TherespondentfiledanOpposition,arguingthathischildrenarenotindispensablepartiesbecausetheissueinthecasecanberesolvedwithouttheirparticipationintheproceedings.
[11]

THERTCRULING

TheRTCfoundtherespondentsargumenttobewelltakenandthusdeniedthepetitionersmotiontodismissinanOrderdatedMarch14,2006.
[12]
Italsonotedthatthepetitioners
motionwassimplyfiledtodelaytheproceedings.

AfterthedenialoftheirMotionforReconsideration,
[13]
thepetitionerselevatedtheircasetotheCAthroughaPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
[14]
They
chargedtheRTCwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdictionfornotdismissingthecaseaftertherespondentfailedtoincludeindispensableparties.

THECARULING

TheCAdismissedthepetition
[15]
inaDecisionpromulgatedonDecember28,2007.ItfoundthattheRTCdidnotcommitanygraveabuseofdiscretionindenyingthepetitioners
motiontodismiss,notingthattherespondentschildrenarenotindispensableparties.

Thepetitionersmoved
[16]
butfailed
[17]
tosecureareconsiderationoftheCADecisionhence,thepresentpetition.

Following the submission of the respondents Comment

[18]
and the petitioners Reply,
[19]
we gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda.
[20]
Bothpartiescomplied.
[21]

Meanwhile,onApril24,2009,thepetitionersfiledwiththeRTCaMotiontoSuspendProceedingsduetothependencyofthepresentpetition.TheRTCdeniedthemotiontosuspend
aswellasthemotionforreconsiderationthatfollowed.Thepetitionersrespondedtothedenialbyfilingwithusapetitionfortheissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorder(TRO)toenjointhe
RTCfromproceedingwiththehearingofthecasependingtheresolutionofthepresentpetition.

THEPETITIONand
THEPARTIESSUBMISSIONS

The petitioners submit that the respondents children, who succeeded their deceased mother as coowners of the property, are indispensable parties because a full determination of the
casecannotbemadewithouttheirpresence,relyingonArcelonav.CourtofAppeals,
[22]
Orbetav.Sendiong,
[23]
andGaliciav.ManliquezVda.deMindo.
[24]
Theyarguethatthenon
joinderofindispensablepartiesisafataljurisdictionaldefect.

The respondent, on the other hand, counters that the respondents children are not indispensable parties because the issue involved in the RTC whether the signatures of the
respondentandhiswifeintheDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedSeptember20,2001werefalsifiedcanberesolvedwithouttheparticipationoftherespondentschildren.

THEISSUE

ThecoreissueiswhethertherespondentschildrenareindispensablepartiesinCivilCaseNo.291903.InthecontextoftheRule65petitionbeforetheCA,theissueiswhethertheCA
correctlyruledthattheRTCdidnotcommitanygraveabuseofdiscretioninrulingthattherespondentschildrenarenotindispensableparties.

OURRULING

Weseenomeritinthepetition.

GeneralRule:Thedenialofa
motiontodismissisan
interlocutoryorderwhichis
notthepropersubjectofan
appealorapetitionfor
certiorari.

At the outset, we call attention to Section 1 of Rule 41

[25]
of the Revised Rules of Court governing appeals from the RTC to the CA.This Section provides that an appeal may be
takenonlyfromajudgmentorfinalorderthatcompletelydisposesofthecase,orofamatterthereinwhendeclaredbytheRulestobeappealable.Itexplicitlystatesaswellthatnoappeal
maybetakenfromaninterlocutoryorder.

Inlaw,thewordinterlocutoryreferstointerveningdevelopmentsbetweenthecommencementofasuitanditscompleteterminationhence,itisadevelopmentthatdoesnotendthe
wholecontroversy.
[26]
An interlocutory order merely rules on an incidental issue and does not terminate or finally dispose of the case it leaves something to be done before the case is
finallydecidedonthemerits.
[27]

AnOrderdenying a Motion to Dismiss is interlocutory because it does not finally dispose of the case, and, in effect, directs the case to proceed until final adjudication by the court.
Only when the court issues an order outside or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, will
certioraribeconsideredanappropriateremedytoassailaninterlocutoryorder.
[28]

Inthepresentcase,sincethepetitionersdidnotwaitforthefinalresolutiononthemeritsofCivilCaseNo.291903fromwhichanappealcouldbetaken,butoptedtoimmediately
assailtheRTCOrdersdatedMarch14,2006andMay8,2006throughapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCA,theissueforustoaddressiswhethertheRTC,inissuingitsorders,gravely
abuseditsdiscretionorotherwiseactedoutsideorinexcessofitsjurisdiction.

TheRTCdidnotcommitgrave
abuseofdiscretionindenying
thepetitionersMotionto
Dismisstherespondentsco
ownersarenotindispensable
parties.

TheRTCgroundeditsOrderdatedMarch14,2006denyingthepetitionersmotiontodismissonthefindingthattherespondentschildren,ascoownersofthesubjectproperty,are
notindispensablepartiestotheresolutionofthecase.

WeagreewiththeRTC.

Section7,Rule3oftheRevisedRulesofCourt
[29]
definesindispensablepartiesaspartiesininterestwithoutwhomtherecanbenofinaldeterminationofanactionandwho,forthis
reason,mustbejoinedeitherasplaintiffsorasdefendants.Jurisprudencefurtherholdsthatapartyisindispensable,notonlyifhehasaninterestinthesubjectmatterofthecontroversy,but
also if his interest is such that a final decree cannot be made without affecting this interest or without placing the controversy in a situation where the final determination may be wholly
inconsistentwithequityandgoodconscience.Heisapersonwhoseabsencedisallowsthecourtfrommakinganeffective,complete,orequitabledeterminationofthecontroversybetweenor
amongthecontendingparties.

[30]

Whenthecontroversyinvolvesapropertyheldincommon,Article487oftheCivilCodeexplicitlyprovidesthatanyoneofthecoownersmaybringanactioninejectment.

We have explained in Vencilao v. Camarenta

[31]
andin Sering v. Plazo
[32]
that the term action in ejectment includes a suit for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer
(desahucio).
[33]
We also noted in Sering that the term action in ejectment includes also, an accion publiciana (recovery of possession) or accion reinvidicatoria
[34]
(recovery of
ownership).Most recently in Estreller v. Ysmael,
[35]
we applied Article 487 to an accion publiciana case in Plasabas v. Court of Appeals
[36]
we categorically stated that Article 487
appliestoreivindicatoryactions.

Weupheldinseveralcasestherightofacoownertofileasuitwithoutimpleadingothercoowners,pursuanttoArticle487oftheCivilCode.WemadethisrulinginVencilao,where
theamendedcomplaintforforcibleentryanddetainerspecifiedthattheplaintiffisoneoftheheirswhocoownsthedisputedproperties.InSering,andResuenav.CourtofAppeals,
[37]
the
coownerswhofiledtheejectmentcasedidnotrepresentthemselvesastheexclusiveownersoftheproperty.InCelinov.HeirsofAlejoandTeresaSantiago,
[38]
thecomplaintforquieting
oftitlewasbroughtinbehalfofthecoownerspreciselytorecoverlotsownedincommon.
[39]
InPlasabas,theplaintiffsallegedintheircomplaintforrecoveryoftitletoproperty(accion
reivindicatoria) that they are the sole owners of the property in litigation, but acknowledged during the trial that the property is coowned with other parties, and the plaintiffs have been
authorizedbythecoownerstopursuethecaseonthelattersbehalf.

ThesecasesshouldbedistinguishedfromBaloloyv.Hular
[40]
andAdlawanv.Adlawan
[41]
wheretheactionsforquietingoftitleandunlawfuldetainer,respectively,werebroughtfor
thebenefitoftheplaintiffalonewhoclaimedtobethesoleowner.Weheldthattheactionwillnotprosperunlesstheplaintiffimpleadedtheothercoownerswhoareindispensableparties.In
thesecases,theabsenceofanindispensablepartyrenderedallsubsequentactionsofthecourtnullandvoidforwantofauthoritytoact,notonlyastotheabsentpartiesbutevenastothose
present.

Wereadthesecasestocollectivelymeanthatwherethesuitisbroughtbyacoowner,withoutrepudiatingthecoownership,thenthesuitispresumedtobefiledforthebenefitofthe
othercoownersandmayproceedwithoutimpleadingtheothercoowners.However,wherethecoownerrepudiatesthecoownershipbyclaimingsoleownershipofthepropertyorwhere
thesuitisbroughtagainstacoowner,hiscoownersareindispensablepartiesandmustbeimpleadedaspartydefendants,asthesuitaffectstherightsandinterestsoftheseothercoowners.

Inthepresentcase,therespondent,astheplaintiffinthecourtbelow,neverdisputedtheexistenceofacoownershipnorclaimedtobethesoleorexclusiveownerofthelitigatedlot.In
fact, he recognized that he is a bonafide coowner of the questioned property, along with his deceased wife. Moreover and more importantly, the respondents claim in his complaint in
CivilCaseNo.291903ispersonaltohimandhiswife,i.e.,thathisandhiswifessignaturesintheDeedofAbsoluteSaleinfavorofpetitionerJosephinewerefalsified.Theissuethereforeis
falsification, an issue which does not require the participation of the respondents coowners at the trial it can be determined without their presence because they are not parties to the
document their signatures do not appear therein. Their rights and interests as coowners are adequately protected by their coowner and father, respondent Moises O. Anacay, since the
complaintwasmadepreciselytorecoverownershipandpossessionofthepropertiesownedincommon,and,assuch,willredoundtothebenefitofallthecoowners.
[42]

Insum,respondentschildren,ascoownersofthesubjectproperty,arenotindispensablepartiestotheresolutionofthecase.WeheldinCarandangv.HeirsofDeGuzman
[43]
thatin
caseslikethis,thecoownersarenotevennecessaryparties,foracompletereliefcanbeaccordedinthesuitevenwithouttheirparticipation,sincethesuitispresumedtobefiledforthebenefit
ofall.
[44]
Thus,therespondentschildrenneednotbeimpleadedaspartyplaintiffsinCivilCaseNo.291903.

We cannot subscribe to the petitioners reliance on our rulings in Arcelona v. Court of Appeals,
[45]
Orbetav.Sendiong
[46]
and Galiciav.Manliquez Vda. de Mindo,
[47]
for these
cases find no application to the present case. In these cited cases, the suits were either filed against a coowner without impleading the other coowners, or filed by a party claiming sole
ownershipofapropertythatwouldaffecttheinterestsofthirdparties.

Arcelona involved an action for security of tenure filed by a tenant without impleading all the coowners of a fishpond as partydefendants. We held that a tenant, in an action to
establish his status as such, must implead all the proindiviso coowners as partydefendants since a tenant who fails to implead all the coowners as partydefendants cannot establish with
finalityhistenancyovertheentirecoownedland.Orbeta,ontheotherhand,involvedanactionforrecoveryofpossession,quietingoftitleanddamageswhereintheplaintiffsprayedthat
theybedeclaredabsolutecoownersofthedisputedproperty,butwefoundthattherewerethirdpartieswhoserightswillbeaffectedbytherulingandwhoshouldthusbeimpleadedas
indispensableparties.InGalicia,wenotedthatthecomplaintforrecoveryofpossessionandownershipandannulmentoftitleallegedthattheplaintiffspredecessorininterestwasdeprived
ofpossessionandownershipbyathirdparty,butthecomplaintfailedtoimpleadalltheheirsofthatthirdparty,whowereconsideredindispensableparties.

Inlightoftheseconclusions,noneedarisestoactonpetitionersprayerforaTROtosuspendtheproceedingsintheRTCandwefindnoreasontograntthepresentpetition.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weherebyDENYthepetitionforitsfailuretoshowanyreversibleerrorintheassailedDecisiondatedDecember28,2007andResolutiondated
April11,2008oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.94673,bothofwhichweherebyAFFIRM.Costsagainstthepetitioners.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
*
KnownasJosephineMarmoEsguerrainotherpartsoftherollo.
[1]
FiledunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
[2]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeVicenteQ.Roxas,withAssociateJusticesJaparB.DimaampaoandRamonR.Garcia,concurringrollo,pp.123131.
[3]
Id.at146.
[4]
Id.at82.
[5]
Id.at8388.
[6]
ExcludingpetitionerMarisadelPilar.
[7]
Rollo,pp.2734.
[8]
Rollo,pp.3540.
[9]
Id.at4145.
[10]
Id.at7779.
[11]
Id.8081.
[12]
Id.at82.
[13]
Id.at8388.
[14]
Id.at89104.
[15]
Supranote2.
[16]
Rollo,pp.132140.
[17]
Supranote3.
[18]
Rollo,pp.153156.
[19]
Id.at159.
[20]
Id.at163164.
[21]
Id.at165180,186192.
[22]
345Phil.250(1997).
[23]
G.R.No.155236,July8,2005,463SCRA180.
[24]
G.R.No.155785,April13,2007,521SCRA85.
[25]
SECTION1.Subjectofappeal.Anappealmaybetakenfromajudgmentorfinalorderthatcompletelydisposesofthecase,orofaparticularmatterthereinwhendeclaredbytheseRulestobeappealable.

Noappealmaybetakenfrom:
(a)Anorderdenyingamotionfornewtrialorreconsideration
(b)Anorderdenyingapetitionforrelieforanysimilarmotionseekingrelieffromjudgment
(c)Aninterlocutoryorder
(d)Anorderdisallowingordismissinganappeal
(e)Anorderdenyingamotiontosetasideajudgmentbyconsent,confessionorcompromiseonthegroundoffraud,mistakeorduress,oranyothergroundvitiatingconsent
(f)Anorderofexecution
(g)Ajudgmentorfinalorderfororagainstoneormoreofseveralpartiesorinseparateclaims,counterclaims,crossclaimsandthirdpartycomplaints,whilethemaincaseispending,unlessthecourtallowsanappealtherefromand
(h)Anorderdismissinganactionwithoutprejudice

Inalltheaboveinstanceswherethejudgmentorfinalorderisnotappealable,theaggrievedpartymayfileanappropriatespecialcivilactionunderRule65.(Emphasisprovided.)
[26]
SeeExMayorTambaoanv.CourtofAppeals,417Phil.683,695(2001)andHaliliv.CourtofIndustrialRelations,etal.,130Phil.806,811(1968).
[27]
Repolv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.161418,April28,2004,428SCRA321,327328.
[28]
SeeHeirsofBertuldoHinogv.Melicor,495Phil.422,435(2005)PhilippineAmericanLifeandGeneralInsuranceCompanyv.ValenciaBagalasca,435Phil.104,111(2002)andJ.L.BernardoConstructionv.CourtofAppeals,381Phil.25(2000).
[29]
SECTION7.Compulsoryjoinderofindispensableparties.Partiesininterestwithoutwhomnofinaldeterminationcanbehadofanactionshallbejoinedeitherasplaintiffsordefendants.
[30]
SeeMoldesv.Villanueva,G.R.No.161955,August31,2005,468SCRA697,707708ServicewideSpecialists,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,376Phil.602,612(1999).
[31]
140Phil.99(1969).
[32]
298Phil.315(1988).
[33]
SeealsoDeGuiav.CourtofAppeals,459Phil.447(2003).
[34]
Otherdecisionsspellitasaccionreivindicatoria,seeHeirsofTomasDolletonv.FilEstateManagement,Inc.,G.R.No.170750,April7,2009EstateofSoledadManantanv.Somera,G.R.No.145867,April7,2009Amorosov.Alegre,Jr.,G.R.No.142766,June
15,2007,524SCRA641Valdez,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.132424,May4,2006,489SCRA369HeirsofDemetrioMelchorv.Melchor,461Phil.437(2003)andSerdoncillov.SpousesBenolirao,358Phil.83(1998).
[35]
G.R.No.170264,March13,2009.
[36]
G.R.No.166519,March31,2009.
[37]
G.R.No.128338,March28,2005,454SCRA42.
[38]
479Phil.617(2004).
[39]
Id.at624.
[40]
481Phil.398(2004).
[41]
G.R.No.161916,January20,2006,479SCRA275.
[42]
SeealsoWeev.DeCastro,G.R.No.176405,August20,2008,562SCRA695,711andSantosv.HeirsofDomingaIlustre,G.R.No.151016,August6,2008,561SCRA120,132.
[43]
G.R.No.160347,November29,2006,508SCRA469,487488.
[44]
Id.at487488.
[45]
Supranote23.
[46]
Supranote24.
[47]
Supranote25.