G.R. No. L-17045; June 30, 1962
Leoncio Garchitorena, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Rosa De Los Santos, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants, the Garchitorena brothers, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur to assert ownership and recover possession of two parcels of land, alleging over 40 years of possession by them and their predecessors. They claimed the defendants-appellees, the De Los Santos siblings, had conspired to disturb their possession. The defendants, in their answer and subsequent motions, sought dismissal on the ground of res judicata, referencing a prior judgment (Civil Case No. 2004) involving the same property where ownership was adjudicated in their favor against Juan Garchitorena, a brother and co-heir of the plaintiffs. The trial court initially denied these dismissal motions.
During trial, after the defendants presented their first witness, the trial court issued an order dated November 26, 1957. The court found that Juan Garchitorena, being in possession of the litigated land, was an indispensable party to the suit. It consequently ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to implead Juan as a defendant within ten days. The plaintiffs failed to file the required amended complaint within the given period.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with its order to amend the complaint by impleading an indispensable party.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order. The power to order an amendment to a complaint to include an indispensable party lies within the sound discretion of the court. When a person is deemed indispensable to the adjudication of the controversy, their presence is mandatory, and the court cannot proceed with finality without them. The plaintiffs, upon receiving the lawful order, had no choice but to comply.
Their failure to do so constituted a failure to prosecute their action and to obey a lawful court order, which is a valid ground for dismissal under Section 3, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court. The Court cited its precedent in Bautista vs. Teodoro, Jr., which upheld a dismissal for a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the ownership claim or the defense of res judicata, but on a procedural default. The plaintiffs’ inaction justified the dismissal for lack of prosecution. The order of dismissal was therefore affirmed, with costs against the appellants.