Valdez-Tallorin vs. Heirs of Juanito Tarona G.R. NO. 177429 November 24, 2009
Valdez-Tallorin vs. Heirs of Juanito Tarona G.R. NO. 177429 November 24, 2009
Valdez-Tallorin vs. Heirs of Juanito Tarona G.R. NO. 177429 November 24, 2009
Respondents Carlos, Rogelio, and Lourdes Tarona filed an action before RTC against petitioner
Anicia Valdez-Tallorin for the cancellation of her and two other women's tax declaration over a
parcel of land. Taronas alleged that, unknown to them, in 1981, the Assessor's Office of Morong
cancelled Tax Declaration of a land in Bataan in the name of their father, Juanito Tarona.
Cancellation was said to be based on an unsigned though notarized affidavit that he allegedly
executed in favor of Tallorin and two others, namely, Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and
Dolores Valdez, who were not impleaded in the action. In place of the cancelled one, Assessor's
Office issued Tax Declaration 6164 in the names of the latter three persons. Juanito’s affidavit
had been missing and no copy could be found among the records of the Assessor's Office.
Without their father's affidavit on file, it followed that his tax declaration had been illegally
cancelled and a new one illegally issued in favor of Tallorin and the others with her. Taronas
asked RTC to annul Tax Declaration 6164, reinstate Tax Declaration 463, and issue a new one
in the name of Juanito's heirs. Taronas filed a motion to declare Tallorin in default for failing to
answer their complaint within the allowed time. Tallorin filed a belated answer, alleging that she
held a copy of the affidavit of Juanito, where the latter waived his occupation and tenancy rights
to Tallorin. RTC set Tallorin's affirmative defenses for hearing. Taronas sought reconsideration
which RTC denied. By certiorari before the CA, Taronas succeeded in getting the latter court to
annul the RTC's orders, ruling that RTC gravely abused its discretion in admitting Tallorin's late
answer in the absence of a motion to admit it. Upon remand, RTC heard the Taronas' motion to
declare Tallorin in default. RTC rendered judgment in favor of Taronas, answering all of their
prayers. Tallorin appealed the decision to the CA, pointing out that RTC erred in not dismissing
the complaint for failure to implead Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and Dolores Valdez who
were indispensable parties in the action to annul Juanito's affidavit and the tax declaration in
their favor. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
Issue: WoN CA erred in failing to dismiss the Taronas' complaint for not impleading Margarita
Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and Dolores Valdez in whose names, like their co-owner Tallorin, the
annulled tax declaration had been issued
Ruling:. Rule 2 Sec. 7 provides that parties in interest without whom no final determination can
be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs and defendants. Indispensable parties are
those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their
rights, so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence. Joining indispensable parties
into an action is mandatory, being a requirement of due process. Without their presence, the
judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders
all subsequent actions of the court null and void. Indeed, it would have no authority to act, not
only as to the absent party, but as to those present as well. The responsibility for impleading all
indispensable parties lie in the plaintiff. Here, RTC and CA annulled Tax Declaration 6164 that
belonged not only to defendant Tallorin but also to Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and
Dolores Valdez, which two persons had no opportunity to be heard as they were never
impleaded. RTC and CA had no authority to annul that tax declaration without seeing to it that
all three persons were impleaded in the case. Any decision granting what the Taronas wanted
would necessarily affect the rights of such persons to the property covered by the tax
declaration. But the Taronas' action cannot be dismissed outright. The non-joinder of
indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal. Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties
and allows the amendment of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, through motion or
on order of the court on its own initiative. Only if plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable
party, despite the order of the court, may it dismiss the action.