G.R. No. L-11146; April 22, 1957
MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA and REMEDIOS CRUZCOSA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of MANILA, and EFREN V. MENDOZA, respondents.

FACTS

On April 28, 1949, respondent Efren V. Mendoza filed two ejectment complaints in the Municipal Court of Manila against Catalino Cruzcosa and Catalino Cruzcosa, Jr., claiming ownership of a lot in Tondo, Manila, which the defendants occupied at a monthly rental of P24, and alleging non-payment of rent since July 1948 and his need for the premises. After trial, judgment was rendered for Mendoza. Catalino Cruzcosa moved for reconsideration in his case, arguing he was not the real party in interest as the building on the lot belonged to his children, Catalino Cruzcosa, Jr., Remedios Cruzcosa, and Virginia Cruzcosa. Reconsideration was denied, and both defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance. There, Catalino Cruzcosa again moved to dismiss on the same ground, but it was denied. After a joint trial, the Court of First Instance also rendered judgment for Mendoza. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which found that the house was indeed owned by Catalino Cruzcosa, Jr. and his sisters, petitioners Marieta Virginia Cruzcosa and Remedios Cruzcosa, but that the lease agreement was with their father, Catalino Cruzcosa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment ordering ejectment. Upon return of the records, Mendoza moved for execution and later for demolition of the house. The petitioners opposed, arguing the house was jointly owned by them and their brother, and they had never been made parties to the proceedings. Notwithstanding, the court granted the motion and ordered demolition. The petitioners then filed this certiorari petition with a prayer for preliminary injunction, which was granted.

ISSUE

Whether the order of demolition is valid against petitioners Marieta Virginia Cruzcosa and Remedios Cruzcosa, who were conclusively found to be co-owners of the building but were never made parties to the ejectment proceedings.

RULING

The order of demolition is null and void as to the petitioners. The Court of Appeals had conclusively found petitioners to be co-owners of the building. Having an interest in the property, they should have been made parties to the ejectment proceedings to afford them an opportunity to protect their rights. Not having been made parties, they are not bound by and cannot be affected by the judgment rendered against their co-owner, Catalino Cruzcosa, Jr. To execute the judgment against their interests would deprive them of property without due process of law. Respondent Mendoza’s arguments of laches and estoppel fail because the courts never acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners, as they were never made parties; jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver or omission. Furthermore, intervention is permissive, not compulsory, and petitioners had the right to rely on their constitutional right to a hearing before deprivation of property. There was also no proof petitioners had knowledge of the pendency of the ejectment actions prior to the demolition order. Respondent Mendoza had been aware of petitioners’ interest since the inferior court proceedings, as defendant Catalino Cruzcosa consistently asserted it, making it Mendoza’s duty to amend his complaint to include them. The preliminary injunction is made permanent. Costs against respondent Efren V. Mendoza.