GR 26354; (March, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26354 March 4, 1976
MIGUEL RAÑESES, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE BERNARDO TEVES OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of the late Martin Yamit, previously filed Civil Case No. 2389 against Romualdo Udalbe for the recovery of properties allegedly belonging to Yamit’s estate. That case was terminated by a compromise agreement, approved by the court, which allocated specific parcels of land to Udalbe and the petitioners. However, the compromise was defectively executed, as not all petitioners signed it personally or through authorized representatives. Subsequently, the private respondents (other claimants) filed Civil Case No. 19-C against the petitioners for the partition of the estates of both Martin Yamit and his predeceased wife, Crispina Udalbe. In this new case, petitioners moved for leave to file a third-party complaint against Romualdo Udalbe, seeking to implead him to account for the properties already assigned to him under the prior compromise. The respondent judge denied the motion.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against Romualdo Udalbe in the partition case.
RULING
Yes, the denial constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the partition case (Civil Case No. 19-C) encompassed the entire estates of both deceased spouses. The properties already assigned to Romualdo Udalbe under the questionable compromise in the earlier case must be taken into account to achieve a complete and just settlement. His joinder as a third-party defendant is warranted under the comprehensive terms of “contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief” in the Rules of Court. The Court found that the prior compromise agreement was approved by the lower court without the requisite scrutiny, as it was signed without proper authority for many petitioners, indicating a lack of due care. The dictates of justice require Udalbe’s participation to ensure all properties are considered and to prevent potential fraud. While certiorari generally does not lie against interlocutory orders, an exception is made when a patent injustice or grave abuse of discretion is palpable, as in this case where the lower court’s order would preclude a full and fair adjudication of the estates. The orders were set aside, and the lower court was directed to admit the third-party complaint.