G.R. No. L-20906 July 30, 1966
DOMINGA TORRES, petitioner, vs. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, J.M. TUASON and Co., INC. and SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.

FACTS

On January 7, 1959, J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed Civil Case No. Q-3674 in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City against Isidro Conisido to recover possession of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267. In his answer, Conisido alleged he was merely a tenant of Dominga Torres, who owned the land and the house thereon. During trial, Dominga Torres testified as Conisido’s witness, asserting she owned the lot, having purchased it from Eustaquio Alquiros on October 20, 1951, and constructed a P500.00 house which she leased to Conisido for P20.00 monthly. Despite this, Torres was not formally impleaded as a party. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Tuason & Co., ordering Conisido and all persons claiming under him to vacate, remove improvements, and pay monthly compensation until possession is restored. Conisido appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in not dismissing due to non-joinder of Torres as an indispensable party, but the appellate court affirmed the decision. After the decision became final, the respondent judge issued a writ of execution and an order for demolition. Torres filed a third-party claim and then the present petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the decision, writ, and demolition order, and to enjoin her ejectment.

ISSUE

Whether the failure to implead Dominga Torres as an indispensable party defendant in the ejectment case (Civil Case No. Q-3674) renders the judgment therein unenforceable against her, warranting the grant of the writs of certiorari and prohibition.

RULING

The petition is denied, and the case is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that while Dominga Torres was an indispensable party who should have been formally impleaded, her substantial rights were not prejudiced by this technical defect. She had the fullest opportunity to present her claim of ownership during the trial as she testified as a witness for the defendant, Conisido, and squarely laid before the court the issue of ownership between her and respondent Tuason & Co. The principle of due process was satisfied as she was notified and given a chance to defend her rights. The Court emphasized that procedure is a means to an end, and rules should be construed liberally to promote a speedy and inexpensive resolution of controversies. Technicalities that do not serve the purpose of justice deserve scant consideration. Citing Alonso vs. Villamor, the Court stated that lawsuits are not games of technicalities, and imperfections of form should be brushed aside when substantial rights are not prejudiced. The failure to implead her could be cured by authorizing an amendment to the complaint to conform to the evidence and proceedings under Rule 10, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved.