G.R. No. L-5477
THE NON-CHRISTIAN GULIB, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. THE NON-CHRISTIAN BUCQUIO, ET AL, defendants-appellants.
August 12, 1910

FACTS:
Plaintiffs-appellees Gulib, et al. (wife and husband) commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte to recover possession of six parcels of land and P1,155 in damages from defendants-appellants Bucquio, et al. The lower court found for the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to deliver a portion of the land to them. Defendants appealed.

During the proceedings, defendants demurred to the complaint on grounds of plaintiffs’ lack of personality, confusion of parties, and vagueness, which the lower court overruled. In their subsequent answer, defendants alleged that the plaintiffs were minors, but this allegation was neither denied nor proven at trial.

Evidence showed that plaintiff Gulib inherited the lands from her father, Damasco. It also appeared that Gulib had a minor sister named Idada (alias Idang), who was 10 years old at the time of trial. Furthermore, it was evident that Gulib herself was a minor and had been allowed to maintain the action without the appointment of a guardian.

ISSUE:
Whether the lower court erred in proceeding with the case and rendering a decision when not all necessary parties, specifically minor co-heirs, were joined, and when a plaintiff, being a minor herself, was allowed to maintain the action without the appointment of a guardian.

RULING:
Yes, the lower court erred.

While the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s overruling of the demurrer, noting that an objection based on a party’s minority, if not appearing on the face of the complaint, must be raised by answer (Sections 91 and 92 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions), it found a substantive error in the proceeding.

The Court held that the lower court committed an error by allowing the action to proceed without the inclusion of all necessary parties and without proper representation for the minor plaintiffs. If the deceased Damasco left other children besides Gulib, it is presumed they inherited with her, making them indispensable coparceners whose rights must be protected by being joined as either plaintiffs or defendants. Specifically, Gulib’s 10-year-old minor sister, Idada, should have been a party through a guardian. Additionally, plaintiff Gulib herself, being a minor, should have had a guardian appointed to maintain the action.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the cause. The lower court was directed to allow amendment of the pleadings and appointment of guardians so that all interested parties could be properly heard.