G.R. No. L-18911 April 27, 1967
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. CLEOFE RAMOS, ET AL., defendants. CLEOFE RAMOS, ET AL., third-party plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FELIPE ASUNCION, ET AL., third-party defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint against defendants Cleofe Ramos, et al., with two causes of action: (1) for annulment of the registration and title of Lot No. 2, Psu-117285, and its reversion to the public domain; and (2) for an order prohibiting defendants from excavating the Wawang Dapdap River and constructing works on land covered by their foreshore lease application, plus recovery of damages for these alleged illegal acts. Defendants, in their answer, denied the illegal excavations and constructions, claiming these acts were instead committed by third-party defendants Felipe Asuncion, et al., who allegedly increased their fishpond holdings from 27 to 200 hectares by illegally placing stakes, adobe stones, and dikes on the riverbed, causing the river to bend toward and become shallower near defendants’ property. With prior leave of court, defendants filed a third-party complaint against Asuncion, et al., praying for the removal of these illegal structures. The third-party defendants moved to dismiss the third-party complaint on grounds of impropriety, lack of legal capacity, and failure to state a cause of action. The lower court granted the motion to dismiss.

ISSUE

Whether the third-party complaint filed by defendants (third-party plaintiffs) against Felipe Asuncion, et al. (third-party defendants) is proper under Rule 6, Section 12 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

No, the third-party complaint is improper. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order dismissing the third-party complaint. The Court held that a third-party complaint is allowed under Rule 6, Section 12 for claims of “contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim” to avoid multiplicity of suits. However, the plaintiff’s causes of action against the defendants (for reversion of land and damages for illegal excavations) are unrelated to the defendants’ claims against the third-party defendants (for damages caused by the third-party defendants’ separate illegal constructions on a different parcel of land). The defendants’ liability to the plaintiff, if any, would stem from their own acts, not from the acts of the third-party defendants. There was no averment that the third-party defendants’ acts induced or necessitated the defendants’ illegal acts, or that they were liable for contribution or indemnity in respect to the plaintiff’s claim. Allowing the third-party complaint would improperly introduce a new and separate controversy into the action.