G.R. No. 182585 ; November 27, 2009
JOSEPHINE MARMO, NESTOR ESGUERRA, DANILO DEL PILAR and MARISA DEL PILAR, Petitioners, vs. MOISES O. ANACAY, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Moises O. Anacay, co-owner with his deceased wife of a property in Cavite, filed a complaint for Annulment of Sale and Recovery of Title against petitioners. He alleged that petitioner Josephine Marmo, authorized to sell the property, sold it to petitioner Danilo del Pilar on installment. Upon Danilo’s default, Moises discovered that the property had been transferred to Josephine via a purportedly falsified Deed of Absolute Sale, and subsequently to Danilo. Moises sought to annul the sale and cancel the resulting title, or alternatively, to compel payment of the balance.
In their Answers, petitioners Josephine and Danilo moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Moises’s children, who inherited their mother’s share, were indispensable parties and their non-joinder was a fatal defect. The respondent opposed, contending the children were not indispensable as the core issue—the authenticity of the signatures in the deed—could be resolved without them.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, which was based on the alleged non-joinder of indispensable parties (the respondent’s children).

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA ruling. The denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order not appealable; a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper only to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The RTC committed no such abuse.
The respondent’s children are not indispensable parties under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. An indispensable party is one without whom no final determination of the action can be had. The primary relief sought is the annulment of a deed based on alleged falsification of the signatures of Moises and his deceased wife. This issue can be fully adjudicated without the participation of the children. A ruling on the deed’s validity would bind the successors-in-interest of the deceased co-owner, including the children, pursuant to the rule on representation. The case is essentially a personal action to declare a deed void, not an action for partition or recovery of title that would require the physical allocation of shares. Therefore, the RTC correctly proceeded with the case, and the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari.