GR 196750; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196750. March 11, 2015.
MA. ELENA R. DIVINAGRACIA, as Administratrix of the ESTATE OF THE LATE SANTIAGO C. DIVINAGRACIA, Petitioner, vs. CORONACION PARILLA, CELESTIAL NOBLEZA, CECILIA LELINA, CELEDONIO NOBLEZA, MAUDE NOBLEZA, Respondents.
FACTS
Conrado Nobleza, Sr. owned a parcel of land. Upon his death, several of his heirs (Cresencio, Conrado, Jr., Felcon [representing his father Mateo, Sr. and siblings], Coronacion, Celestial, Cecilia, Rogelio, Eduardo, and Ricardo) sold their interests in the land to Santiago C. Divinagracia through a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement or Adjudication with Deed of Sale dated November 22, 1989. The other heirs, Ceruleo, Celedonio, and Maude (wife of predeceased heir Cebeleo, Sr.), did not sign the document and refused to surrender the title. Santiago filed a complaint for judicial partition. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered partition between Santiago and the non-selling heirs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint, holding that Felcon’s siblings (heirs of Mateo, Sr.) and Cebeleo, Sr. and Maude’s children were indispensable parties not impleaded in the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the CA correctly ruled that Felcon’s siblings and Cebeleo, Sr. and Maude’s children are indispensable parties to the complaint for judicial partition and correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to implead them.
RULING
The petition is partly meritorious. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling that the omitted heirs are indispensable parties but modified the disposition regarding dismissal.
1. Indispensable Parties: All co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties in an action for partition. The heirs of Conrado, Sr. entitled to a share included his legitimate and illegitimate children. Mateo, Sr. and Cebeleo, Sr. predeceased Conrado, Sr.; thus, their interests should be represented by their children (for Mateo, Sr.: Felcon, Landelin, Eusela, Giovanni, Mateo, Jr., Tito, and Gaylord; for Cebeleo, Sr.: Cebeleo, Jr. and Neobel). Santiago’s complaint impleaded only Felcon for Mateo, Sr.’s share and Maude (the wife) for Cebeleo, Sr.’s share, omitting the other children. This omission rendered the complaint defective. The absence of indispensable parties renders subsequent court actions null and void.
2. Remedy for Non-Joinder: The CA erred in dismissing the complaint. The proper remedy for non-joinder of indispensable parties is not dismissal but to order their inclusion. The case was remanded to the RTC for the inclusion of the indispensable parties and for disposition on the merits.