Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE: Won the RTC should have dismissed the case for failure to state a COA,
considering Milagros De Guzman, allegedly an indepsensible party, was not included
as a party
HELD:
1. Since 3 of the 4 checks used to pay their stock subscriptions were issued in
the name of Milaf de Guzman, the latter should be considered an
indispensable party, failure to join her as party-plaintiff should cause the
dismissal of the action.
2. Petitioners erroneously interchange the terms real party in interest and
indispensable party
3. real party in interest: party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment of the suit or entitled to the avails of the suit.
4. indispensable party: party in interest without whom no final determination
can be had of an action
5. necessary party: one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as
a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for
a complete determination or settlemtn of the claim subject of the action.
6. Dismissal on this ground entails an examination of whether the parties
presently pleaded are interested in the outcome of the litigation, and NOT
whether all persons interested in such outcome are actually pleaded.
7. Milagros and Quirinos property relations are governed by the regime of CPG:
Credits loaned during the time of the marriage are presumed to be conjugal
property, which includes the 4 checks. Since Quirino, is a real party in