G.R. No. 196894. March 3, 2014.

*
JESUS G. CRISOLOGO and NANETTE B. CRISOLOGO, petitioners, vs. JEWM
AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable Parties; In an action for the
cancellation of memorandum annotated at the

_______________

645 back of a certificate of title, the persons considered as indispensable include those
whose liens appear as annotations pursuant to Section 108 of Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 1529.In an action for the cancellation of memorandum annotated at the back of a
certificate of title, the persons considered as indispensable include those whose liens
appear as annotations pursuant to Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, to wit: Section 108.
Amendment and alteration of certificates.No erasure, alteration or amendment shall be
made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum
thereon and the attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds, except by order of the
proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner or other person having an interest in
registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the
Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground
that the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant
inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not
appearing upon the certificates have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error
was made in entering a certificate or memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate certificate;
x x x or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the
petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a
new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any
other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it
may consider proper.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The reason behind this compulsory joinder of indispensable
parties is the complete determination of all possible issues, not only between the parties
themselves but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment.The
reason behind this compulsory joinder of indispensable parties is the complete
determination of all possible issues, not only between the parties themselves but also as
regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment. In this case, RTC-Br. 14,
despite repeated pleas by Spouses Crisologo to be recognized as indispensable parties,
failed to implement the mandatory import of the aforecited rule. In fact, in Sps. Crisologo

* THIRD DIVISION.
 v. Judge George E. Omelio, 682 SCRA 154 (2012), a related administrative case, the
Court found the trial judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law when it disregarded the
claims of Spouses Crisologo to participate.
646
Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Interlocutory Orders; The remedy against an
interlocutory order, not subject of an appeal, is an appropriate special civil action under
Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.At any rate, the remedy against an
interlocutory order, not subject of an appeal, is an appropriate special civil action under
Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Only then is certiorari under Rule 65
allowed to be resorted to.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The Supreme Court has ruled that technical rules
of procedures should be used to promote, not frustrate the cause of justice.In many
instances, the Court has ruled that technical rules of procedures should be used to promote,
not frustrate the cause of justice. Rules of procedure are tools designed not to thwart but to
facilitate the attainment of justice; thus, their strict and rigid application may, for good and
deserving reasons, have to give way to, and be subordinated by, the need to aptly dispense
substantial justice in the normal cause.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable Parties; Time and again, the
Supreme Court has ruled that the absence of an indispensable 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 to those present.Be it noted that the effect of their non-
participation as indispensable parties is to preclude the judgment, orders and the
proceedings from attaining finality. Time and again, the Court has ruled that the absence of
an indispensable 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 to those present. Consequently,
the proceedings before RTC-Br. 14 were null and void including the assailed orders, which
may be ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
R.A.V. Saguisag & Associates for petitioners.
647
Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for respondent.

MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
challenging the May 6, 2011 Decision1[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP

Rollo, pp. 26-36. Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justice
1[1]
Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
 No. 03896-MIN, which affirmed the September 27, 2010,2[2] October 7, 20103[3] and
November 9, 20104[4] Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 14 (RTC-
Br. 14), in Civil Case No. 33,551-2010, an action for Cancellation of Lien. It is entitled
JEWM AgroIndustrial Corporation v. The Registry of Deeds for the City of Davao,
Sheriff Robert Medialdea, John & Jane Does, and all persons acting under their
directions.
This controversy stemmed from various cases of collection for sum of money filed
against So Keng Kok, the owner of various properties including two (2) parcels of land
covered by TCT Nos. 292597 and 292600 (subject properties), which were attached by
various creditors including the petitioners in this case. As a result, the levies were
annotated on the back of the said titles.
Petitioners Jesus G. Crisologo and Nanette B. Crisologo (Spouses Crisologo) were the
plaintiffs in two (2) collection cases before RTC, Branch 15, Davao City (RTC-Br. 15),
docketed as Civil Case Nos. 26,810-98 and 26,811-98, against Robert Limso, So Keng
Kok, et. al. Respondent JEWM Agro-Industrial Corporation (JEWM) was the successor-
in-interest of one Sy Sen Ben, the plaintiff in another collection case before RTC, Branch
8, Davao City (RTC-Br. 8), docketed as Civil Case No. 26,513-98, against the same
defendants.

_______________

648
On October 19, 1998, RTC-Br. 8 rendered its decision based on a compromise
agreement, dated October 15, 1998, between the parties wherein the defendants in said
case were directed to transfer the subject properties in favor of Sy Sen Ben. The latter
subsequently sold the subject properties to one Nilda Lam who, in turn, sold the same to
JEWM on June 1, 2000. Thereafter, TCT Nos. 325675 and 325676 were eventually issued
in the name of JEWM, both of which still bearing the same annotations as well as the
notice of lis pendens in connection with the other pending cases filed against So Keng
Kok.
A year thereafter, Spouses Crisologo prevailed in the separate collection case filed
before RTC-Br. 15 against Robert Lim So and So Keng Koc (defendants). Thus, on July 1,
1999, the said defendants were ordered to solidarily pay the Spouses Crisologo. When this
decision attained finality, they moved for execution. On June 15, 2010, a writ was
eventually issued. Acting on the same, the Branch Sheriff issued a notice of sale
scheduling an auction on August 26, 2010. The notice of sale included, among others, the
subject properties covered by TCT Nos. 325675 and 325676, now, in the name of JEWM.
In the same proceedings, JEWM immediately filed its Affidavit of Third Party Claim
and the Urgent Motion Ad Cautelam. It prayed for the exclusion of the subject properties

2[2] Id., at pp. 133-137.

3[3] Id., at p. 141.
4[4] Id., at pp. 142-143.
 from the notice of sale. In an order, dated August 26, 2010, however, the motion was
denied. In turn, the Spouses Crisologo posted a bond in order to proceed with the
execution.
To protect its interest, JEWM filed a separate action for cancellation of lien with prayer
for the issuance of a preliminary injunction before RTC-Br. 14, docketed as Civil Case No.
33,551-2010. It prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the
public sale of the subject properties covered in the writ of execution issued pursuant to the
ruling of RTC-Br. 15; the cancellation of all the annotations on the back of the pertinent
TCTs; and the issuance of a permanent injunction order after trial on the merits. The
Regis-
649ter of Deeds of Davao City, Sheriff Robert Medialdea, John and Jane Does and all
persons acting under their directions were impleaded as defendants.
At the scheduled hearing before RTC-Br. 14 on September 22, 2010, Spouses
Crisologos counsel appeared and filed in open court their Very Urgent Manifestation
questioning the authority of the said court to restrain the execution proceedings in RTC-Br.
15. JEWM opposed it on the ground that Spouses Crisologo were not parties in the case.
On September 24, 2010, Spouses Crisologo filed an Omnibus Motion praying for the
denial of the application for writ or preliminary injuction filed by JEWM and asking for
their recognition as parties. No motion to intervene was, however, filed as the Spouses
Crisologo believed that it was unnecessary since they were already the John and Jane Does
named in the complaint.
In the Order, dated September 27, 2010, RTC-Br. 14 denied Spouses Crisologos
Omnibus Motion and granted JEWMs application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
On October 1, 2010, Spouses Crisologo filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion before
RTC-Br. 14 praying for reconsideration and the setting aside of its September 27, 2010
Order. This was denied in the RTC-Br. 14s October 7, 2010 Order for lack of legal
standing in court considering that their counsel failed to make the written formal notice of
appearance. The copy of this order was received by Spouses Crisologo on October 22,
2010. It must be noted, however, that on October 27, 2010, they received another order,
likewise dated October 7, 2010, giving JEWM time to comment on their Very Urgent
Omnibus Motion filed on October 1, 2010. In its Order, dated November 9, 2010,
however, RTC-Br. 14 again denied the Very Urgent Motion previously filed by Spouses
Crisologo.
On November 12, 2010, JEWM moved to declare the defendants in default which
was granted in an order given in open court on November 19, 2010.
650
Spouses Crisologo then filed their Very Urgent Manifestation, dated November 30,
2010, arguing that they could not be deemed as defaulting parties because they were not
referred to in the pertinent motion and order of default.
On November 19, 2010, Spouses Crisologo filed with the CA a petition for
certiorari5[5] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the RTC-Br. 14 orders, dated

5[5] Dated November 15, 2010.

 September 27, 2010, October 7, 2010 and November 9, 2010, all of which denied their
motion to be recognized as parties. They also prayed for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
In its Resolution, dated January 6, 2011, the CA denied the application for a TRO, but
directed Spouses Crisologo to amend their petition. On January 19, 2011, the Spouses
Crisologo filed their Amended Petition6[6] with prayers for the issuance of a TRO and/or
writ of preliminary injunction, the annulment of the aforementioned orders of RTC-Br. 14,
and the issuance of an order dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction issued in favor of
JEWM.
Pending disposition of the Amended Petition by the CA, JEWM filed a motion on
December 6, 2010 before RTC-Br. 14 asking for the resolution of the case on the merits.
On January 10, 2011, RTC-Br. 14 ruled in favor of JEWM, with the dispositive portion
of its Decision7[7] stating as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of

the plaintiff as follows:
1. the preliminary writ of injunction issued on October 5, 2010 is hereby made
permanent;
2. directing herein defendant Registry of Deeds of Davao City where the subject
lands are located, to

_______________

651 cancel all existing liens and encumbrances on TCT Nos. T-325675 and T-325676
registered in the name of the plaintiff, and pay the
3. cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.8[8]

Spouses Crisologo then filed their Omnibus Motion Ex Abudanti ad Cautelam, asking
RTC-Br. 14 to reconsider the above decision. Because no motion for intervention was filed
prior to the rendition of the judgment, a certificate, dated March 17, 2011, was issued
declaring the January 10, 2011 decision final and executory.
On May 6, 2011, the CA eventually denied the Amended Petition filed by Spouses
Crisologo for lack of merit. It ruled that the writ of preliminary injunction subject of the
petition was already fait accompli and, as such, the issue of grave abuse of discretion
attributed to RTC-Br. 14 in granting the relief had become moot and academic. It further
held that the failure of Spouses Crisologo to file their motion to intervene under Rule 19
rendered Rule 65 inapplicable as a vehicle to ventilate their supposed right in the case.9[9]

6[6] Rollo, pp. 146-159.

7[7] Id., at pp. 175-177. Penned by Judge George E. Omelio.
8[8] Id., at p. 177.
9[9] Id., at p. 36.
 Hence, this petition.

ISSUES

I. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the action for Cancellation of Annotations may
proceed even without notice to and impleading the party/ies who caused the annotations, in
clear contravention of the rule on joinder of parties and basic due process.

II. The Court of Appeals erred in applying a very constrictive interpretation of the rules in

_______________

652

holding that a motion to intervene is the only way an otherwise real party in interest could
participate.

III. The Court of Appeals erred in denying our application for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction.

IV. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the issues raised by petitioners before it [had] been
mooted by the January 10, 2011 decision of RTC Branch 14.10[10]

Spouses Crisologo submit as error the CA affirmation of the RTC-Br. 14 ruling that the
action for cancellation may proceed without them being impleaded. They allege
deprivation of their right to due process when they were not impleaded in the case before
RTC-Br. 14 despite the claim that they stand, as indispensable parties, to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the action for the cancellation of annotations covering the
subject properties. They cite Gonzales v. Judge Bersamin,11[11] among others, as
authority. In that case, the Court ruled that pursuant to Section 108 of Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 1529, notice must be given to all parties in interest before the court may hear
and determine the petition for the cancellation of annotations on the certificates of title.
The Spouses Crisologo also question the statement of the CA that their failure to file
the motion to intervene under Rule 19 before RTC-Br. 14 barred their participation in the
cancellation proceedings. They put emphasis on the courts duty to, at the very least,
suspend the proceedings before it and have such indispensable parties impleaded.

_______________

653

10[10] Id., at p. 11.

11[11] 325 Phil. 120; 254 SCRA 652 (1996).
 As to the ruling on the denial of their application for the issuance of a TRO or writ of
preliminary injunction, Spouses Crisologo claim that their adverse interest, evinced by the
annotations at the back of the certificates of title, warranted the issuance of a TRO or writ
of preliminary injunction against JEWMs attempt to cancel the said annotations in
violation of their fundamental right to due process.
Lastly, Spouses Crisologo cast doubt on the CA ruling that the issues presented in their
petition were mooted by the RTC-Br. 14 Decision, dated January 10, 2011. Having been
rendered without impleading indispensable parties, the said decision was void and could
not have mooted their petition.
In their Comment,12[12] JEWM asserts that Spouses Crisologos failure to file a motion
to intervene, pleadings-in-intervention, appeal or annulment of judgment, which were
plain, speedy and adequate remedies then available to them, rendered recourse to Rule 65
as improper; that Spouses Crisologo lacked the legal standing to file a Rule 65 petition
since they were not impleaded in the proceedings before RTC-Br. 14; and that Spouses
Crisologo were not indispensable parties since their rights over the properties had been
rendered ineffective by the final and executory October 19, 1998 Decision of RTC-Br. 8
which disposed unconditionally and absolutely the subject properties in favor of its
predecessor-in-interest. JEWM further argues that, on the assumption that Section 108 of
P.D. No. 1529 applies, no notice to Spouses Crisologo was required because they were not
real parties-in-interest in the case before RTC-Br. 14, or even if they were, their non-
participation in the proceedings was because of their failure to properly intervene pursuant
to Rule 19; and, lastly, that the case before RTC-Br. 14 became final and executory
because Spouses Crisologo did not perfect an appeal therefrom, thus, rendering the issues
in the CA petition moot and academic.

_______________

654
In their Reply,13[13] Spouses Crisologo restate the applicability of Section 108 of P.D.
No. 1529 to the effect that any cancellation of annotation of certificates of title must be
carried out by giving notice to all parties-in-interest. This they forward despite their
recognition of the mootness of their assertion over the subject properties, to wit:

Again, we respect JAICs position that the claims of subsequent attaching creditors
(including petitioners) have been rendered moot and academic, and hence the entries in

12[12] Rollo, pp. 241-262.

13[13] Id., at pp. 335-340.
 favor of said creditors have no more legal basis and therefore must be cancelled. But we
likewise at least ask a modicum of respect by at least being notified and heard.14[14]

The Ruling of the Court

The crux of this controversy is whether the CA correctly ruled that RTC-Br. 14 acted
without grave abuse of discretion in failing to recognize Spouses Crisologo as
indispensable parties in the case for cancellation of lien.
In this respect, the Court agrees with Spouses Crisologo.
In an action for the cancellation of memorandum annotated at the back of a certificate
of title, the persons considered as indispensable include those whose liens appear as
annotations pursuant to Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529,15[15] to wit:

Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates.No erasure, alteration or

amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title
or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds,
except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered

_______________

655owner or other person having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the
Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply
by petition to the court upon the ground that the registered interests of any description,
whether vested, contingent, expectant inchoate appearing on the certificate, have
terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificates have arisen
or been created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or
memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate certificate; x x x or upon any other reasonable
ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in
interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or
cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such
terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper.

In Southwestern University v. Laurente,16[16] the Court held that the cancellation of the
annotation of an encumbrance cannot be ordered without giving notice to the parties
annotated in the certificate of title itself. It would, thus, be an error for a judge to contend
that no notice is required to be given to all the persons whose liens were annotated at the
back of a certificate of title.

14[14] Id., at p. 338.

15[15] Entitled as Amending and Codifying the Laws relative to Registration of Property and
for other purposes.
16[16] 135 Phil. 44; 26 SCRA 52 (1968).
 Here, undisputed is the fact that Spouses Crisologos liens were indeed annotated at the
back of TCT Nos. 325675 and 325676. Thus, as persons with their liens annotated, they
stand to be benefited or injured by any order relative to the cancellation of annotations in
the pertinent TCTs. In other words, they are as indispensable as JEWM itself in the final
disposition of the case for cancellation, being one of the many lien holders.

_______________

656
As indispensable parties, Spouses Crisologo should have been joined as defendants in
the case pursuant to Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

SEC. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.Parties in interest without

whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants. 17[17]

The reason behind this compulsory joinder of indispensable parties is the complete
determination of all possible issues, not only between the parties themselves but also as
regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment. 18[18]
In this case, RTC-Br. 14, despite repeated pleas by Spouses Crisologo to be recognized
as indispensable parties, failed to implement the mandatory import of the aforecited rule.
In fact, in Sps. Crisologo v. Judge George E. Omelio,19[19] a related administrative
case, the Court found the trial judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law when it
disregarded the claims of Spouses Crisologo to participate. In part, the Court stated:

This is not the first time Judge Omelio has rendered a decision affecting third parties
interests, without even notifying the indispensable parties. In the first disputed case,
JEWM Agro-Industrial Corporation v. Register of Deeds, Sheriff Medialdea, John & Jane
Does and all persons acting under their directions, Judge Omelio failed to cause the
service of proper summons upon the John and Jane Does impleaded in the complaint. Even
when Sps. Crisologo voluntarily appeared in court to be recognized as the John and Jane
Does, Judge Omelio refused to acknowledge their appearance and ordered the striking out
of Sps. Crisologos pleadings. For this reason,
_______________

17[17] Rule 3, Rules of Court.

18[18] Moldes v. Villanueva, 505 Phil. 767; 468 SCRA 697 (2005).
19[19] A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA 154.
 657the Investigating Justice recommended admonishing Judge Omelio for failing to
recognize the Sps. Crisologo as indispensable parties in that case.
xxx xxx xxx
Clearly, the cancellation of the annotation of the sale without notifying the buyers, Sps.
Crisologo, is a violation of the latters right to due process. Since this is the second time
that Judge Omelio has issued an order which fails to notify or summon the indispensable
parties, we find Judge Omelio guilty of gross ignorance of the law, with a warning that
repetition of the same or similar act will merit a stiffer penalty in the future.
xxx
WHEREFORE, We find Judge George E. Omelio GUILTY of four counts of the
serious charge of gross ignorance of the law for the following acts: (a) refusing to
recognize Spouses Jesus G. Crisologo and Nanette B. Crisologo as indispensable parties;
in violation of the latters right to due process. Accordingly, we impose upon Judge
George E. Omelio the penalty of fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), with a
warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.20[20]

The trial court should have exercised prudence in denying Spouses Crisologos pleas to
be recognized as indispensable parties. In the words of the Court, Judge Omelio should
be penalized for failing to recognize Sps. Crisologo as indispensable parties and for
requiring them to file a motion to intervene, considering that a simple perusal of the
certificates of title would show Sps. Crisologos adverse rights because their liens are
annotated at the back of the titles.21[21]

_______________

658
This manifest disregard of the basic rules and procedures constitutes a grave abuse of
discretion.
In State Prosecutors II Comilang and Lagman v. Judge Medel Belen,22[22] the Court
held as inexcusable abuse of authority the trial judges obstinate disregard of basic and
established rule of law or procedure. Such level of ignorance is not a mere error of
judgment. It amounts to evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty

20[20] A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA 192-193.

21[21] Crisologo v. Omelio, supra note 19, at p. 182.
22[22] A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216, June 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 477.
 enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law,23[23] or in essence, grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Needless to say, judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance
with statutes and procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in
good faith as judicial competence requires no less.24[24]
Despite the clear existence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of RTC-Br. 14,
JEWM asserts technical grounds on why the CA did not err in dismissing the petition via
Rule 65. It states that:

a) The Crisologos could have used other available remedies such as intervention
under Rule 19, an appeal of the judgment, or even an annulment of judgment, which are,
by all means, plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law;
b) The Crisologos lack legal standing to file the Rule 65 petition since they were not
impleaded in the Branch 14 case.

_______________

659
The rule is that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper only if there is no
appeal, or any plain speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In this case, no adequate recourse, at that time, was available to Spouses Crisologo,
except resorting to Rule 65.
Although Intervention under Rule 19 could have been availed of, failing to use this
remedy should not prejudice Spouses Crisologo. It is the duty of RTC-Br. 14, following
the rule on joinder of indispensable parties, to simply recognize them, with or without any
motion to intervene. Through a cursory reading of the titles, the Court would have noticed
the adverse rights of Spouses Crisologo over the cancellation of any annotations in the
subject TCTs.
Neither will appeal prove adequate as a remedy since only the original parties to an
action can appeal.25[25] Here, Spouses Crisologo were never impleaded. Hence, they
could not have utilized appeal as they never possessed the required legal standing in the
first place.
And even if the Court assumes the existence of the legal standing to appeal, it must be
remembered that the questioned orders were interlocutory in character and, as such,
Spouses Crisologo would have to wait, for the review by appeal, until the rendition of the
judgment on the merits, which at that time may not be coming as speedy as practicable.

23[23] Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 580 Phil. 135, 140;
558 SCRA 148, 153 (2008).
24[24] Enriquez v. Judge Caminade, 519 Phil. 781; 485 SCRA 98 (2006), citing Abbariao v.
Beltran, 505 Phil. 510; 468 SCRA 419 (2005).
25[25] Spouses Leynes v. Former Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No.
154462, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 25, 40.
 While waiting, Spouses Crisologo would have to endure the denial of their right, as
indispensable parties, to participate in a proceeding in which their indispensability was
obvious. Indeed, appeal cannot constitute an adequate, speedy and plain remedy.
The same is also true if recourse to Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 is made
since this remedy presupposes a final judgment already rendered by a trial court.

_______________

660
At any rate, the remedy against an interlocutory order, not subject of an appeal, is an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order is
rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Only then is
certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to.26[26]
This takes particular relevance in this case where, as previously discussed, RTC-Br. 14
acted with grave abuse of discretion in not recognizing Spouses Crisologo as indispensable
parties to the pertinent action.
Based on the above, recourse to the CA via Rule 65 would have already been proper,
except for one last issue, that is, Spouses Crisologos legal standing to file the same.
JEWM cites DBP v. COA27[27] where the Court held:

The petition for certiorari under Rule 65, however, is not available to any person who
feels injured by the decision of a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions. The person aggrieved under Section 1 of Rule 65 who can avail of the
special civil action of certiorari pertains only to one who was a party in the proceedings
before the court a quo, or in this case before the COA. To hold otherwise would open the
courts to numerous and endless litigations.

Under normal circumstances, JEWM would be correct in their averment that the lack of
legal standing on the part of Spouses Crisologo in the case before RTC-Br. 14 prevents the
latters recourse via Rule 65.
This case, however, is an exception. In many instances, the Court has ruled that
technical rules of procedures should be used to promote, not frustrate the cause of justice.
Rules of

_______________

661procedure are tools designed not to thwart but to facilitate the attainment of justice;
thus, their strict and rigid application may, for good and deserving reasons, have to give

26[26] Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, G.R. No. 156358, August 17, 2011, 655 SCRA 553, 567-
568, citing F. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium 540 (8th revised ed.).
27[27] 467 Phil. 62; 422 SCRA 459 (2004).
 way to, and be subordinated by, the need to aptly dispense substantial justice in the normal
cause.28[28]
Be it noted that the effect of their non-participation as indispensable parties is to
preclude the judgment, orders and the proceedings from attaining finality. Time and again,
the Court has ruled that the absence of an indispensable 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 to those present. Consequently, the proceedings before RTC-Br. 14 were
null and void including the assailed orders, which may be ignored wherever and
whenever it exhibits its head.29[29]
To turn a blind eye to the said nullity and, in turn, rule as improper the recourse to Rule
65 by the lack of legal standing is to prolong the denial of due process to the persons
whose interests are indispensable to the final disposition of the case. It will only result in a
protracted litigation as Spouses Crisologo will be forced to rely on a petition for the
annulment of judgment before the CA (as the last remaining remedy), which may again
reach this Court. To prevent multiplicity of suits and to expedite the swift administration
of justice, the CA should have applied liberality by striking down the assailed orders
despite the lack of legal standing on the part of Spouses Crisologo to file the Rule 65
petition before it. Besides, this lacking requirement, of which Spouses Crisologo were not
even at fault, is precisely the reason why this controversy arose.

_______________

662
All told, the CA erred in dismissing the amended petition filed before it and in not
finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of RTC-Br. 14.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 6, 2011 Decision of the Court of
Appeals is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The September 27, 2010, October 7, 2010 and
November 9, 2010 Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City, are
likewise NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 33,551-2010 is hereby
REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. The respondent is ordered to
implead all parties whose annotations appear at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title
Nos. 325675 and 325676.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Bersamin** and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment nullified and set aside.

28[28] Santos v. Litton Mills, Incorporated, G.R. No. 170646, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 510,
citing Fiel v. Kris Security Systems, Inc., 448 Phil. 657, 662; 400 SCRA 533, 536 (2003).
29[29] Buena v. Sapnay, 116 Phil. 1023; 6 SCRA 706 (1962), citing Banco Espaol-Filipino v.
Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 (1918); Lipana v. Court of First Instance of Cavite, 74 Phil. 18 (1942).
 Notes.Joinder of indispensable parties is compulsory being a sine qua non for the
exercise of judicial power. (Guy vs. Guy, 680 SCRA 214 [2012])
An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject
matter of a case that a final adjudication cannot be made in his or her absence, without
injuring or affecting that interest. (Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 699
SCRA 16 [2013])
o0o

_______________

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.