G.R. No. 51208. March 29, 1989.
GODOFREDO BACAR, petitioner, vs. HON. AMELIA DEL ROSARIO, Presiding Judge, CFI of Iloilo, and VALERIANO BACABAC and FIDELA BACABAC, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Godofredo Bacar filed a complaint for injunction and damages with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against private respondents Valeriano and Fidela Bacabac. Bacar alleged he was a leasehold tenant in actual possession of a two-hectare landholding belonging to Guadalupe Bacabac Batapa and Faustino Bacabac. He claimed that the private respondents, through hired individuals, illegally set fire to his palay straw pile and plowed his landholding with a tractor in April 1978, disturbing his possession and cultivation. He sought a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent further molestation and damages.
Instead of filing an answer, the private respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds, which the trial court denied. They then filed an answer, denying the allegations and asserting ownership of the land themselves. Following an ocular inspection, the trial court issued an order dated May 3, 1979, directing Bacar to amend his complaint by joining Guadalupe Bacabac Batapa and Faustino Bacabac as indispensable parties. The court reasoned that the question of ownership had to be resolved to determine Bacar’s right to possession, and such determination could not be made without the alleged landowners. Bacar’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the joinder of the alleged landowners as indispensable parties in an action for injunction primarily concerned with possession.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the trial court’s orders. The Court clarified the fundamental distinction between ownership and possession. A person may be the owner but not entitled to possession, which may legally be held by another as a lessee or tenant. The action filed by Bacar was essentially one for injunction to protect his possession from disturbance by the private respondents’ alleged forcible acts. The relief sought—a restraint against molestation—could be granted based on a determination of the right to possession without needing a final declaration of ownership.
Consequently, Guadalupe Bacabac Batapa and Faustino Bacabac were not indispensable parties under the Rules of Court. Their joinder was unnecessary for the trial court to adjudicate the possessory issue. The private respondents’ claim of ownership, while putting the issue in controversy, should be ventilated in a separate proper action. They could not legitimize taking the law into their own hands through force or intimidation. The respondent judge therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders for joinder, which unduly expanded the scope of a simple possessory injunction suit. The case was remanded for further proceedings.