GR 104721; (May, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104721 May 31, 1994
UNITED PARACALE MINING COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND JOSE CHUATENGCO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner United Paracale Mining Company filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 4905) against the Director of Lands and fifty-three individual defendants. Petitioner alleged it was the owner of forty-nine mining claims in Paracale, Camarines Norte, located and perfected under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 624 , as amended, thereby constituting private property segregated from the public domain. It performed annual assessment work since 1930/1934, filed corresponding affidavits, paid real estate taxes, applied for a patent, and had its rights approved by the Bureau of Mines. On October 16, 1978, petitioner filed a mining lease application over the claims, reserving its rights acquired under the Act of July 1, 1902. Private respondent Jose Chuatengco filed a motion to dismiss, citing Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1214, which required holders of patentable mining claims to file a mining lease application within one year, upon which they would be deemed to have waived their right to a mining patent, with non-compliance causing forfeiture. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner appealed, contending there were conflicting Supreme Court rulings on whether a locator of a mining claim perfected under the Philippine Bill of 1902 has an absolute right of ownership (as in Atok-Big Wedge Mining Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals) or merely a possessory right (as in Director of Lands vs. Kalahi Investments, Inc.). The Solicitor General filed a comment and motion, alleging that when petitioner appealed the trial court’s dismissal, only private respondent Chuatengco was named as adverse party, and the Director of Lands was not included, thus praying for the Director of Lands to be excluded as a respondent.
ISSUE
Whether the petition should be dismissed due to the failure to join an indispensable party.
RULING
Yes, the petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the Director of Lands is an indispensable party to the case under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates the joinder of parties without whom no final determination can be had of an action. The omission of the Director of Lands, who was not included as an adverse party in the appeal of the trial court’s order of dismissal, is fatal to petitioner’s cause. An action cannot proceed without indispensable parties, and their joinder is compulsory; failure to implead them warrants dismissal.