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 the respondents, through hired help, 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 acts of dispossession.
The trial court initially issued a restraining order. The private respondents moved to dismiss, claiming ownership of the land, but the motion was denied. After an ocular inspection report indicated Bacar had worked the land since 1976 but that ownership “apparently” belonged to the respondents, the trial court issued an order dated May 3, 1979. It directed Bacar to amend his complaint to join Guadalupe Bacabac Batapa and Faustino Bacabac as indispensable parties, reasoning that the question of ownership had to be resolved to determine the right to possession. Bacar’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this certiorari petition.

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 filed by a possessor against alleged disturbers.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the assailed orders. The Court clarified the distinct legal concepts of ownership and possession. A person may be the owner but not entitled to possession, which may legally be with another, such 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. The relief sought—to enjoin the respondents from molesting his cultivation—could be granted without needing to implead the alleged landowners. They were not indispensable parties under the rules.
The Court emphasized that the private respondents’ claim of ownership was a separate issue that should be ventilated in a proper action, not in this injunction suit. If they believed they were owners entitled to possession, they must invoke the aid of the competent court in a separate proceeding against Bacar and the alleged landowners; they could not take the law into their own hands. The respondent judge therefore committed a grave abuse of discretion in requiring the joinder, which unnecessarily complicated a simple possessory action. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.