G.R. No. L-34124. April 30, 1985.
MR. & MRS. TADEO P. DAEL, petitioners, vs. THE HON. BERNARDO TEVES, as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Branch VIII and DIONISIO EDOROT, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Mr. and Mrs. Tadeo P. Dael filed a complaint for “Ownership, Recovery of Possession & Damages” against the private respondents, the Edorots, concerning a parcel of land in Misamis Oriental. The Dael spouses claimed ownership by purchase from the late Esteban Edorot in 1962 and alleged that the respondents forcibly occupied the land in 1964. The Edorots, in their answer, claimed pro-indiviso ownership by inheritance from their deceased parents, thereby asserting an adverse interest in the property.
During pre-trial proceedings, it was revealed that two named defendants, Petra Edorot and Herminigildo Edorot, had died even before the complaint was filed in October 1970. The new presiding judge, respondent Judge Bernardo Teves, issued an order on June 29, 1971, directing the petitioners to file an amended complaint to include the heirs or legal representatives of these deceased defendants. The petitioners failed to comply with this order.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for failure to amend it to include the heirs of deceased defendants as indispensable parties.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court acted correctly and within its jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on the rules governing indispensable parties. The deceased defendants, Herminigildo and Petra Edorot, held an undivided interest in the contested property by inheritance, which passed to their heirs upon their deaths. Since their interest was adverse to the petitioners’ claim, these heirs became the real parties in interest regarding that share of the property.
Under Sections 2 and 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, all persons who claim an interest in the subject of the action adverse to the plaintiff, and without whom no final determination of the action can be had, are indispensable parties and must be joined as defendants. The heirs of the deceased Edorots were therefore indispensable parties. The respondent judge properly ordered the amendment of the complaint to include them. The petitioners’ failure to comply with a lawful court order justified dismissal under Section 3, Rule 17, which permits dismissal for failure to comply with rules or a court order.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments. Their reliance on Rule 3, Section 16 (duty of attorney upon death of a party) was misplaced, as that rule applies when a party dies during the pendency of the action, not before its commencement, as here. An alleged waiver by one heir, Victor Edorot, was ineffective as he was not the sole heir, and his waiver could not bind other heirs. Furthermore, the respondents’ ex-parte manifestation informing the court of non-compliance was not a litigated motion requiring notice, as the court could have dismissed the case motu proprio. The dismissal was affirmed but clarified to be without prejudice to refiling, to avoid an adjudication on the merits under the circumstances.