Galido v. Magrare

Facts:

Andigan sold undivided portions of Lot 1052-A to Nelson P. Magrare (Magrare), Evangeline M. Palcat (Palcat) and Rodolfo Bayombong (Bayombong). To Magrare was sold an undivided portion with an area of 700 square meters, more or less; to Palcat, 1,000 square meters, more or less; and to Bayombong, 500 square meters, more or less.

Andigan caused the subdivision of Lot 1052-A into five lots. TCT No. T-21405 was cancelled and new certificates were issued for the subdivided portions. However, Andigan did not turn over the new TCTs to Magrare, Palcat and Bayombong, and the latter were unaware of the subdivision. Andigan mortgaged the same three lots to petitioner and the latter came into possession of the owner's duplicate copies of 3 TCTs. Magrare, Palcat and Bayombong registered their respective adverse claims on 3 TCTs.

RTC directed that spouses Andigan to surrender or deliver to the Register of Deeds for Antique the owner's duplicate copies of the TCTs. Spouses Andigan through counsel filed a Notice of Appeal but was dismissed.

Issue:

Whether or not the heirs of Bayombong are Indispensable Parties

Held:

Yes. The Court found reversible error on the part of the trial court in not impleading the heirs of Bayombong. Indispensable parties are parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action.⁵⁰ Petitioner's action was for the cancellation of titles, including TCT No. T-22376. The trial court itself recognized that the controversy was contentious in nature, and required the participation of Bayombong, among others. Bayombong, like respondents Magrare and Palcat stood to be benefited or prejudiced by the outcome of the case. Since he was already dead at the time the case was filed by petitioner, the heirs of Bayombong stand in his stead not only as parties in interest, but indispensable parties. Without the heirs of Bayombong to represent the interest of Bayombong, there can be no complete determination of all the issues presented by petitioner.

Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, as the remedy in such case is to implead the party claimed to be indispensable, considering that parties may be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action.