G.R. No. L-6651, March 28, 1912
PAULINO JACINTO (in representation of his wife Benita Reymundo), plaintiff-appellant, vs. JULIANA SALVADOR, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Paulino Jacinto instituted an action in the Court of First Instance to recover certain parcels of land. He filed the suit “in representation of his wife Benita Reymundo,” alleging that she was the owner of the lands by inheritance from her deceased mother. Benita Reymundo was not formally made a party plaintiff in the case; only her husband Paulino Jacinto appeared as the plaintiff representing her. The lower court ruled against Jacinto. He appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether a husband can institute and maintain an action in court solely in his own name but “in representation of” his wife, for the recovery of her paraphernal property, without joining her as a party to the suit.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case for the proper inclusion of the wife as a party.

The Court held that Benita Reymundo was indisputably the real party in interest, as the action concerned her paraphernal property. Under the Civil Code, while a conjugal partnership is formed upon marriage and the husband administers the conjugal assets, the wife retains ownership of her paraphernal property. The husband cannot institute any kind of action regarding his wife’s paraphernal property without her intervention or consent.

The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ):
1. Section 114 mandates that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.
2. Section 115 explicitly allows a married woman to sue or be sued alone when the action concerns her separate property in which her husband has no interest.
3. Section 122 requires the court to order the inclusion of all parties necessary for a complete determination of the controversy.

The Court reasoned that the procedural authority previously granted to a husband to represent his wife in litigation under the old laws was not a vested right. This authority was superseded by the new Code of Civil Procedure, which made the real party in interest rule imperative. The phrase “a person expressly authorized by law” in Section 114 refers to persons like court-appointed representatives or trustees of an express trust, not to a husband suing for his wife’s separate property. Since the wife is the real owner and the real party in interest, and her presence is indispensable for a complete adjudication of the case, there was a fatal defect of parties plaintiff. The case must be remanded to make Benita Reymundo a party to the suit.