G.R. No. L-12381; April 4, 1918
Sisenando Palarca, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Catalino Baguisi, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
The plaintiff-appellant, Sisenando Palarca, filed an ejectment suit against several defendants who were allegedly in unlawful possession of portions of a larger tract of land claimed by him. The case was appealed from the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, which had dismissed the complaint. The record revealed that the decision was rendered by a judge who did not hear the evidence, and at the time of the decision, no transcription had been made of the stenographic notes of several important witnesses. Additionally, affidavits were submitted to show that the property’s value exceeded P10,000. The plaintiff’s title was based on a deed dated April 15, 1911, which included signatures of minors without judicial authorization, with some signed by their grandmother or mother on their behalf.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court’s decision, rendered by a judge who neither heard the witnesses nor read the transcript of their testimony, is valid.
2. Whether a co-owner of an undivided interest in land can maintain an action in ejectment without joining all other co-owners.

RULING:
1. On the Validity of the Trial Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court held that a judge who did not hear the witnesses or read the transcript of their testimony cannot render a valid decision based on incomplete findings. The defect cannot be cured on appeal, as the appellate court exercises jurisdiction only over cases tried in the Court of First Instance. The case was remanded to the trial court for complete and specific findings on all issues of fact, without retaking the evidence. The trial court was directed to make specific findings regarding each defendant’s claim, including whether their land is within the plaintiff’s boundaries and the nature and duration of their possession, especially if prescription is raised.

2. On the Ejectment Action by a Co-owner: The Supreme Court ruled that a co-owner cannot maintain an action in ejectment without joining all other co-owners. The deed of April 15, 1911, was void as to the minors’ interests due to lack of judicial authorization, making the plaintiff merely a co-owner with those minors. Under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, and all necessary parties must be joined to prevent multiplicity of suits. A judgment in favor of the defendant would not bind other co-owners not party to the suit, exposing the defendant to repeated litigation.

The Supreme Court also admonished counsel for failing to comply with briefing rules, emphasizing the duty to specify references to the record to support factual contentions.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion. No costs were awarded on appeal.