G.R. No. L-24103 August 10, 1967
Beatriz G. Vda. de Dios, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Leandro Balagot, petitioner-appellant, vs. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. and Pedro Deudor, oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

Beatriz G. Vda. de Dios, the registered owner of a parcel of land in Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 52577, filed an action for recovery of possession against Leandro Balagot. She alleged that Balagot was occupying a portion of the land without her knowledge or tolerance and refused to vacate despite demands. Balagot, in his answer with counterclaim, asserted that he bought the occupied portion from Pedro Deudor in 1950, took possession, and built a house thereon. He claimed his right was superior based on an agreement between J.M. Tuason & Co. and the Deudor heirs. He sought reconveyance or payment for the land and house, plus damages. After filing his answer but before the scheduled hearing, Balagot filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against J.M. Tuason & Co. and Pedro Deudor for payment in case of eviction. The plaintiff opposed, citing Article 1559 of the Civil Code, which requires a vendee to ask that the vendor be made a co-defendant within the time for answering the complaint, and noting that the Tuason-Deudor agreement had been rescinded. The trial court denied the motion for lack of merit. Balagot appealed the order to the Court of Appeals, which certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as it involved pure questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Is the third-party complaint admissible or not?
2. May the order denying the admission of the third-party complaint be appealed from at this stage of the proceedings?

RULING

1. The third-party complaint is admissible against Pedro Deudor but not against J.M. Tuason & Co. Article 1558 of the Civil Code requires a defendant-vendee in an eviction suit to summon his vendor to enforce the warranty against eviction. This summoning can be done either by asking the vendor to be made a co-defendant under Article 1559 (within the time for answering the complaint) or by filing a third-party complaint under the Rules of Court. A third-party complaint filed after the answer but before trial is not barred by Article 1559’s time limit. Against Pedro Deudor, Balagot’s vendor, the third-party complaint is necessary to enforce the warranty and avoid multiplicity of suits; a separate action would not prosper without such summoning. However, against J.M. Tuason & Co., with whom Balagot has no vendor-vendee relationship, the third-party complaint seeks to enforce the Tuason-Deudor agreement and is not required by Article 1558, so its disallowance was proper.
2. Yes, the order denying the third-party complaint against Pedro Deudor is appealable at this stage. The denial finally disposed of Balagot’s right to enforce the warranty against eviction in that suit, as a separate action would not prosper under Article 1558. Thus, nothing further remained to be done in the trial court regarding that right, making the order appealable.
The order appealed from is modified to allow the filing of the third-party complaint against Pedro Deudor but not against J.M. Tuason & Co. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. No costs.