Conrad, a landowner, lived a happy life. During his lifetime, he contracted two marriages.
The first was with Lolit with whom he had two children. Upon Lolit’s death, he married Eus, with whom he had seven children. Conrad also begot three illegitimate children. His 12 children brought him immense joy.
Sadly, however, Mat and Ceb, Conrad’s son with Eus, predeceased their dad. Mat was survived by his children. Ceb, on the other hand, was survived by his wife and children.
Upon the death of Conrad, six of his children and the heirs of his deceased son, Mat, sold their shares in the land to Santy as embodied in a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed of Sale. The said document, however, was not signed by the remaining three heirs who did not sell their respective shares.
Later, Santy and the ones who sold their shares executed a Supplemental Contract whereby the vendor-heirs and Santy agreed that only a portion of the purchase price will be paid up front, and the remaining balance upon the partition of the subject land.
Santy was not able to have the title cancelled and the subject document registered because the non-selling heirs refused to surrender the title to him.
Aggrieved, Santy filed a Complaint for judicial partition and for receivership. However, a reading of Santy’s complaint shows that a number of heirs were not impleaded as defendants.
Q: Who should be impleaded as defendants in a complaint for judicial partition?
A: Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court requires that all persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants, viz.:
SEC. 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate.—A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property.
Thus, all the co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties; as such, an action for partition will not lie without the joinder of the said parties.
In the case at bar, the heirs of Conrad are his legitimate and illegitimate children, who are entitled to a pro-indiviso share in the subject land. As far as the sons of Conrad who predeceased him are concerned, their interests will be represented by their respective children and surviving spouse, if any.
Said heirs, whether in their own capacity or in representation of their direct ascendant have vested rights over the subject land and, as such, should be impleaded as indispensable parties in an action for partition thereof.
Q: Would the fact that Santy already acquired majority of the interests of the heirs justify the non-inclusion of all the heirs of Conrad in the complaint for partition he filed?
A: No. While it is conceded that Santy bought the interests of majority of the heirs of Conrad, he merely steps into the shoes of the vendors-heirs.
Since his interest over the subject land is merely derived from that of the vendors-heirs, the latter should first be determined as co-owners thereof, thus necessitating the joinder of all those who have vested interests in such land.
Well-entrenched is the rule that in actions for partition, the court cannot properly issue an order to divide the property, unless it first makes a determination as to the existence of co-ownership. The court must initially settle the issue of ownership, which is the first stage in an action for partition.
Until and unless this issue of co-ownership is definitely and finally resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition of the disputed properties.
Q: Can the heirs who were impleaded move for the immediate dismissal of the case given that the other heirs were not included in the suit?
A: No, Santy’s failure to implead some of the co-heirs is not a ground for the immediate dismissal of an action.
At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the court.
If Santy refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, then the court may dismiss the complaint for Santy’s failure to comply with the order.
Q: What will happen if judgment is rendered notwithstanding the fact that not all heirs were impleaded in the suit for partition?
A: The absence of indispensable parties in the complaint for judicial partition would render 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. (Source: Divinagracia v. Parilla, G.R. No. 196750, March 11, 2015)
Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is currently the Dean for the Lyceum of the Philippines University; president of the Philippines Association of Law Schools; and Senior Partner, Gatchalian Castro & Mawis Law Office