CIVPRO 63. Regner v. Logarta, G.R. 168747, 19 October 2007

I.
II.
Title:
Regner vs. Logarta

G.R. No. 168747 October 19, 2007
Doctrine
Rule 3 Sec. 7 defines indispensible parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be
no final determination of action. As such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as
defendants.
residing and were not found in the Philippines when she filed her complaint. This
constitutes failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time.
IV.
The general rule is that the joinder of all he parties where possible, and the joinder of all
indispensible parties under any and all conditions, their presence being sine qua non for
the exercise of judicial power.
When an indispensible party is not before the court that the action should be dismissed.
The absence of an indispensible party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and
void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
present.
III.
Facts
Luis Regner had three daughters with his first wife, Cynthia, Teresa and Melinda.
During the lifetime of Luis he acquired several properties, among them is his share at
Cebu Country Club Inc.
Luis executed a Deed of Donation if favor of Cynthia and Teresa donating to them his
share in the Country Club. Luis passed away on 1999.
June 1999, Victoria Regner [petitioner], the second wife of Luis, filed a complaint for
the Declaration of nullity of the Deed of Donation against Cynthia and Teresa. She
alleged that when Luis was very ill and no longer of sound mind, Cynthia and Teresa
conspired with each other and fraudulently made a Deed of Donation in their favor.
Since Luis lost the ability to affix his signature, Melinda, under the influence of her
sisters, manipulated the hand of Luis and affixed his thumbmark on the deed. That 3
days before Luis death, the 3 daughters caused the preparation of an affidavit to the
effect that Luis affirmed the Deed.
Sheriff Solon served the summons at the Borja Clinic wherein Melinda worked as a
Doctor, but Melinda refused to receive the summons of her sisters. Upon Teresas
arrival in the Philippines, summons was personally served to her.
September 2002, Teresa filed her Motion to Dismiss stating that Victoria failed to
prosecute her action for an unreasonable length of time. Victoria opposed and filed
her motion to set the case for pre-trial. Teresa filed her rejoinder on the ground that
her sister Cynthia is an indispensible party and had not yet been served summons, and
prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
RTC granted Teresas motion to dismiss, stating that the donees in the deed were
Cynthia and Teresa hence both are indispensible parties. Motion for reconsideration
by Victoria denied.
Victoria appealed to CA.
CA - denied and affirmed in toto RTCs decision. Victoria should have moved for
extraterritorial service of summons for both Cynthia and Teresa as they were not
V.
Victoria files petition for certiorari to SC.
Issues
(1) Whether a co-donee is an indispensible party in an action to declare the nullity of the
deed of donation. (YES)
(2) Whether delay in service of summons constitutes failure to prosecute that would
warrant dismissal of the complaint. (YES)
Held
Petition denied for lack of merit.
(1) Rule 3 Sec. 7 defines indispensible parties as parties-in-interest without whom there
can be no final determination of action. As such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or
as defendants.
The general rule is that the joinder of all he parties where possible, and the joinder of all
indispensible parties under any and all conditions, their presence being sine qua non for
the exercise of judicial power.
When an indispensible party is not before the court that the action should be dismissed.
The absence of an indispensible party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and
void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
present.
The Country Club membership certificate is undivided and it is impossible to pinpoint
which specific portion of the property belongs either to Cynthia or Teresa. Indeed both are
indispensible parties.
Any decision in the civil case cannot bind Cynthia and the Court cannot nullify the
donation of the property she co-owns with Teresa. Without Cynthias presence, the lower
court is barred from making final adjudication; the judgment therein cannot attain finality.
(2) Although Rule 14 Sec. 1 imposes upon the clerk of court to serve summons, it does not
relieve Victoria from prosecuting her case diligently. It is her duty to call the courts
attention.
In fact, it was Teresa who called the courts attention that summons had not been served to
Cynthia. Victoria knowing that Cynthia and Teresa reside abroad, she could have asked
that they be summoned by publication.
If there was no other means, she could have informed the court within a reasonable period
of time. The non-performance of that duty is an express ground for dismissing an action.
For Failure to diligently pursue the complaint, Victoria trifled with the right of the
respondents to speedy trial.

CIVPRO 63. Regner v. Logarta, G.R. 168747, 19 October 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVPRO 63. Regner v. Logarta, G.R. 168747, 19 October 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVPRO 63. Regner v. Logarta, G.R. 168747, 19 October 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I.

Regner vs. Logarta

Victoria appealed to CA.

Victoria files petition for certiorari to SC.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.