Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. vs.

Heirs of Antonio Mortgage (AREM) was executed by the

Tiu, September 4, 2009 husband, with the marital consent of the wife,
the wife is obliged principally under the AREM
Facts: This is a petition for certiorari,
and she is a real party in interest, hence, any
prohibition, and mandamus with prayer for
action must be prosecuted in her name as she
preliminary injunction before the CA .
stands to be benefited or injured in the action.
Antonio, with the marital consent of his wife
The AREM was executed by Antonio, with the
Matilde, executed a REM in favor of petitioner
marital consent of Matilde. Since the
covering a lot in Tacloban City to secure loans in
mortgaged property is presumed conjugal, she
the aggregate amount of 7 million in favor of
is obliged principally under the AREM. It is thus
one Gabriel Ching. Antonio executed an AREM
she, following Art. 1397 of the Civil Code vis-à-
increasing the amount secured by the mortgage
vis Sec. 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, who is
to 26million. Antonio died.
the real party in interest, hence, the action
The loan obligation having remain unsettled, must be prosecuted in her name as she stands
petitioner filed a petition for sale for the to be benefited or injured in the action.
extrajudicial foreclosure of the AREM and the Assuming that Matilde is indeed incapacitated,
sale at public auction of the lot. A day before it is her legal guardian who should file the
the scheduled auction sale, respondents filed a action on her behalf. Not only is there no
complaint/petition for annulment of the AREM, allegation in the complaint, however, that
injunction with prayer for the issuance of writ of respondents have been legally designated as
preliminary injunction and/or TRO and guardians to file the action on her behalf. The
damages. Respondents argued that the AREM name of Matilde, who is deemed the real party
was void having been executed by the wife who in interest, has not been included in the title of
was suffering from advance Alzheimer’s the case, in violation of Sec. 3 of Rule 3 of the
Disease, hence, no valid consent was given. Rules of Court.

The RTC issued a TRO, and subsequently, a writ WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
of preliminary injunction. A MD was filed by Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August
petitioner. He argued that plaintiffs/petitioners 30, 2006 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case
not being the real parties-in-interest, their No. 2003-12-205 lodged before
complaint states no cause of action. The MD
was denied by the RTC. The CA affirmed the
RTC’s decision.

ISSUE: WON the complaint filed by

respondents-children of Antonio, without
impleading Matilde who must also be Antonios
heir, was principally obliged under the AREM
sought to be annulled, is dismissible for lack of
cause of action.

DECISION: YES. Where the Amendment to the

Real Estate
 Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. v. Win Multi- Rich
Builders, Inc., 578 SCRA 272 (2009), this court
Stanley Fine Furniture vs. Gallano and Siarez,
stated that: A sole proprietorship does not
November 26, 2014
possess a juridical personality separate and
Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari distinct from the personality of the owner of
seeking to reverse the decision of the CA. the enterprise. The law merely recognizes the
existence of a sole proprietorship as a form of
Respondents were hired, through its owners business organization conducted for profit by a
Elena and Carlos Wang, as painters/carpenters single individual and requires its proprietor or
by petitioner. Respondents then filed a labor owner to secure licenses and permits, register
complaint for underpayment/nonpayment of its business name, and pay taxes to the national
salaries, wages, ECOL, and 13th month pay while government. The law does not vest a separate
were “still working” for Stanley. Respondents legal personality on the sole proprietorship or
amended their complaint to actual illegal empower it to file or defend an action in court.
dismissal, and claims of other benefits e.g. SSS (Emphasis supplied) Thus, Stanley Fine, being a
benefits, holiday pay. The petitioner Elena sole proprietorship, does not have a personality
Briones claimed that respondents were separate and distinct from its owner, Elena
“required to explain their absences for the Briones. Elena, being the proprietress of Stanley
month of May 2005, but they refused”. Fine, can be considered as a real party-in-
The LA ruled that respondents were illegally interest and has standing to file this petition for
dismissed. The LA noted the contradictory review.
statements on Stanley’s position paper of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of
dismissing the employees for failure to report Appeals’ decision dated July 28, 2009, and its
back to work on time and filing an resolution dated November 27, 2009,
unmeritorious labor case.” reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision dated
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA. It ruled August 2, 2006, are hereby AFFIRMED.
that “filing an unmeritorious labor case” is not
an admission that they dismissed the
employees in retaliation.

The CA on appeal by way of certiorari, reversed

the NLRC, and affirmed the LA. Hence, Elena
filed a petition for review.

ISSUE: WON Elena Briones has standing to file

this petition for review on certiorari

DECISION:

YES. Elena has standing to file this case. A sole

proprietorship does not possess a juridical
personality separate and distinct from the
personality of the owner of the enterprise

Respondents did not refute Elena’s allegation

that Stanley Fine is a sole proprietorship. In
Africa vs Insurance Saving and Investment present petition extinguished the contract of
Agency, April 20, 2015 agency between them and Africa.

Facts: This is a petition for review on Certiorari ISSUE: WON Africa is a real party-in-interest in
under Rule 45 brought directly before the court this case.
for pure questions of law.
DECISION:
ISIA filed a petition for mandamus before the
NO. Even without delving into the factual
RTC alleging that they purchased the subject
finding of the court a quo in this case that
property from Sps. Orfmada, through their
Africa, through subterfuge, never even
attorney-in-fact Jimenez as evidenced by a Deed
presented a certified true copy of the “owner’s
of Absolute Sale (DOAS). After completing all
duplicate copy” which she claims to be in her
the requirement, ISIA proceeded to the RD for
possession, we deny due course to this petition,
registration. Atty. Paner denied the registration
Africa not being a proper party under Rule 3,
on the ground that another owner’s duplicate
Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
copy is in possession of Africa. Atty. Paner filed
its Comment on the petition recognizing the In this instance, with the death of the Spouses
validity of the sale, that transfer of title is Orfinada and despite the claim of ownership by
immediately effected upon payment of the Africa over the subject property, Africa is not
necessary government taxes but in this case, the proper party to file an appeal by certiorari
registration of the sale can be done providence from the adverse rulings of the trial court.
that the affidavit of Africa is carried over to the Section 3 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is
new title. explicit on the requirement that an agent as
party may sue without joining the principal
Africa, although not impleaded as one of the
except when the contract involves things
respondent, filed a Vehement Opposition
belonging to the principal. The herein subject
arguing that the sale was tainted with fraud,
property is ostensibly owned by the Spouses
hence not valid. Africa anchored her argument
Orfinada covered by TCT No. 38910-A
on the order rendered by the RTC and affirmed
registered in their names. This TCT No. 38910-A
by the CA and SC ordering Jimenez to surrender
is one of the titles ISIA seeks to annul as part of
the duplicate’s copy (TCT No. 38910-A) as the
its claim of ownership over vast tracts of land
sale between ISIA and Sps. Orfamada is void ab
bounded by the Pasig River in the North, by the
initio.
Tunisan River in the South, by Laguna de Bay in
RTC granted the petition for mandamus the East, and by the Manila de Bay in the West.
ordering the RD to register the DOAS, cancel The claim covers about 143,102,167 sq. m.,
TCT No. 38910-A, and issue a new title in favor more or less, comprising one-half of Metro
of ISIA. Both Africa and RoD filed a separated Manila. ISIA’s claim includes the subject parcel
MRs. Both were denied. of land covered by TCT No. 38910-A, which ISIA
seeks to recover from herein parties resulting in
Hence, Africa filed this petition for certiorari on
all kinds of litigation between the opposing
behalf of SPS Orginada. She alleged that her
parties, including this suit for mandamus before
contract of agency with Sps. Orfinada is coupled
the court a quo. Africa’s belated claim of
with interest explicitly stating her interest
ownership via purchase cannot make her a
therein. ISIA filed a MD maintaining that the
proper party to this case and circumvent the
death of Sps. Orfmada prior to the filing of the
requirements for establishing ownership over
the subject property.

We can draw a parallel ruling from Tamondong

v. Court of Appeals, 444 SCRA 509 (2004),
where we specifically ruled that the lack of
authority of the representative from the real
party-in-interest, results in the complaint
deemed as not filed. It does not make the
representative as the actual plaintiff in the case.
We held, thus: If a complaint is filed for and in
behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to
do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An
unauthorized complaint does not produce any
legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the
complaint on the ground that it has no
jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff.
On the other hand, if a complaint is filed by an
agent or plaintiff, for and in behalf of the
principal, the plaintiff who is merely the agent is
not the proper party. The reason being that
every action must be presented in the name of
the real party-in- interest. The complaint may
be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff
has no cause of action against the defendants,
conformably to Section 1(g), Rule 16 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
V-Gent, Inc. vs. Morning Star Travel and Tours, capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the
Inc., July 22, 2015 title of the case and shall be deemed to be the
real party-in-interest. A representative may be a
Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari
trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an
V-Gent filed a money claim against Morning executor or administrator, or a party authorized
Star for payment of the unrefunded unused by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his
tickets before the MeTC. Morning Star own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed
countered that they were not entitled to refund principal may sue or be sued without joining the
because the tickets were bought on a “buy one principal except when the contract involves
take one” promo. They also alleged that the real things belonging to the principal. (Emphasis
parties in interest were the passengers in supplied) Thus an agent may sue or be sued
whose names were issued. MeTC dismissed the solely in its own name and without joining the
complaint for lack of cause of action. It ruled principal when the following elements concur:
that V-Gent were agents of the passengers. (1) the agent acted in his own name during the
However, V-Gent failed to prove its claim by transaction; (2) the agent acted for the benefit
preponderance of evidence. of an undisclosed principal; and (3) the
transaction did not involve the property of the
RTC granted the appeal after finding that V- principal.
Gent had established its claim by
preponderance of evidence. The power to collect and receive payments on
behalf of the principal is an ordinary act of
On appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint after administration covered by the general powers
finding that V-Gent is not a real party-in-interest of an agent. On the other hand, the filing of
because it merely acted as an agent of the suits is an act of strict dominion. Under Article
passengers who bought the tickets from 1878(15) of the Civil Code, a duly appointed
Morning Star with their own money. agent has no power to exercise any act of strict
ISSUE: WON V-Gent is a real party-in-interest to dominion on behalf of the principal unless
file the case authorized by a special power of attorney. An
agent’s authority to file suit cannot be inferred
DECISION: NO. V-Gent is not a real party-in- from his authority to collect or receive
interest to file the case payments; the grant of special powers cannot
Every action must be prosecuted or defended in be presumed from the grant of general powers.
the name of the real party-in-interest — the Moreover, the authority to exercise special
party who stands to be benefited or injured by powers must be duly established by evidence,
the judgment in the suit. In suits where an even though it need not be in writing.
agent represents a party, the principal is the WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY
real party-in interest; an agent cannot file a suit the petition for lack of merit.
in his own name on behalf of the principal. Rule
3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides the
exception when an agent may sue or be sued
without joining the principal. Section 3.
Representatives as parties.— Where the action
is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary
 Saludo against PNB. Article 1767 of the Civil
Code provides that by a contract of partnership,
Saludo vs. PNB, August 20, 2018
two or more persons bind themselves to
Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari. contribute money, property, or industry to a
common fund, with the intention of dividing the
SAFA Law Office entered into a Contract of profits among themselves. Two or more
Lease with PNB. After the expiration of the COL, persons may also form a partnership for the
SAFA continued to occupy the leased premises exercise of a profession. Under Article 1771, a
until February 2005, but discontinued paying its partnership may be constituted in any form,
monthly rental obligations after December except where immovable property or real rights
2002. PNB made its final demand to SAFA for are contributed hereto, in which case a public
payment of its rent in the amount of P25, 587, instrument shall be necessary. Article 1784, on
838. 09. Saludo, in his capacity as managing the other hand, provides that a partnership
partner of SAFA, filed an amended complaint begins from the moment of the execution of the
for accounting and/or recomputation of unpaid contract, unless it is otherwise stipulated.
rentals and damages in relation to the COL. PNB
filed a motion to include an indispensable party Here, absent evidence of an earlier agreement,
as plaintiff, praying that Saludo be ordered to SAFA Law Office was constituted as a
amend a new his complaint to include SAFA Law partnership at the time its partners signed the
Office as principal plaintiff. PNB filed its Answer Articles of Partnership wherein they bound
by way of compulsory counterclaim, it argued themselves to establish a partnership for the
that, as a matter of right and equity, it can claim practice of law, contribute capital and industry
that amount from SAFA in solidum with Saludo. for the purpose, and receive compensation and
Saludo filed a MD arguing that SAFA is neither benefits in the course of its operation. The
legal entity nor party litigant. As it is only a subsequent registration of the Articles of
relationship or association of lawyers in the Partnership with the SEC, on the other hand,
practice of law and a single proprietorship may was made in compliance with Article 1 772 of
only be sued through its owner or proprietor, the Civil Code, since the initial capital of the
no valid counterclaims may be asserted against partnership was PS00,000.00.
it.
The foregoing evinces the parties' intention to
RTC granted the MD and issued an Omnibus entirely shift any liability that may be incurred
Order denying the motion to include an by SAFA Law Office in the course of its
indispensable party as plaintiff. operation to Saludo, who shall also receive all
the remaining assets of the firm upon its
On appeal, the CA partially granted the petition. dissolution. This MOU, however, does not serve
It ruled that SAFA is not an indispensable party to convert SAFA Law Office into a sole
since it is not a legal entity, but a mere proprietorship. As discussed, SAFA Law Office
relationship or association for particular was manifestly established as a partnership
purpose. based on the Articles of Partnership. The MOU,
ISSUE: WON SAFA Law Office is neither an from its tenor, reinforces this fact. It did not
indispensable party nor a legal entity change the nature of the organization of SAFA
Law Office but only excused the industrial
DECISION: SAFA is a juridical entity and the real partners from liability.
party-in-interest in suit filed with the RTC by
Having settled that SAFA Law Office is a juridical decisions by substituting as party-plaintiff the
person, we hold that it is also the real party- real party-in-interest.
interest in the case filed by Saludo against PNB.

SAFA Law Office is the party that would be

benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit
before the RTC. Particularly, it is the party
interested in the accounting and/or
recomputation of unpaid rentals and damages
in relation to the contract of lease. It is also the
party that would be liable for payment to PNB
of overdue rentals, if that claim would be
proven. This is because it is the one that
entered into the contract oflease with PNB. As
an entity possessed of a juridical personality, it
has concomitant rights and obligations with
respect to the transactions it enters into.
Equally important, the general rule under
Article 1816 of the Civil Code is that partnership
assets are primarily liable for the contracts
entered into in the name of the partnership and
by a person authorized to act on its behalf. All
partners, including industrial ones, are only
liable pro rata with all their property after all
the partnership assets have been exhausted

In this case, there is likewise no showing that

SAP A Law Office, as a separate juridical entity,
is being used for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal
purposes. Hence, its partners cannot be held
primarily liable for the obligations of the
partnership. As it was SAFA Law Office that
entered into a contract of lease with
respondent PNB, it should also be impleaded in
any litigation concerning that contract.

Accordingly, the complaint filed by Saludo

should be amended to include SAP A Law Office
as plaintiff. Section 11,79 Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court gives power to the court to add a party to
the case on its own initiative at any stage of the
action and on such terms as are just. We have
also held in several cases80 that the court has
full powers, apart from that power and
authority which are inherent, to amend
processes, pleadings, proceedings, and
 pursuant to their right of redemption under the
SPV Act and Article 1634 of the Civil Code.

The RTC granted the motion and ordered

Cameron Granville Asset Mgt. vs Chua,
petitioner to be joined as party-defendant, but
September 16, 2016
without dropping Metrobank.
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari
On appeal, CA reversed the RTC. It ruled that if
under Rule 45
it was true that Metrobank had divested itself
Respondents obtained a loan from Metrobank of any interest in respondents’ debt, then the
in the amount of 4M secured by a REM. For trial court should have forthwith ordered the
failure to pay the loan, Metrobank sought bank’s exclusion from the proceedings. At
extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM. Seeking to bottom, the CA ruled that petitioner could not
stop the public auction, respondents filed a substitute for Metrobank in the proceedings
TRO. The RTC issued a TRO. However, upon its before the trial court without first disclosing the
expiration, Metrobank scheduled another consideration paid by petitioner for the transfer
public auction. An order was issued by the RTC of interest.
directing Metrobank to reschedule the intended
ISSUE: WON petitioner may be joined as a
sale to a da date after the resolution of the
party-defendant
application for preliminary injunction (PI).
However, the order was allegedly received after DECISION: YES. CGAM may be joined as a party-
the public auction. The application for PI by defendant.
herein respondents was dismissed for its
According to the CA, this statement allowed for
mootness. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC
a “provisional” joinder/substitution of parties. It
and remanded the case back to the RTC for
is difficult to fathom how the above statement
reraffling.
of the trial court could have constituted grave
Respondents then filed a motion to admit abuse of discretion when the ruling was in
amended complaint with attanched amended accordance with Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules
verified complaint for annulment of foreclosure of Court. The rule provides that parties may be
or mortgage, declaration of nullity of certificate dropped or added by order of the court on
of sale, and injuction. It alleged that Metrobank motion of any party or on the court’s own
sold to Asia Recovery Corporation its credit initiative at any stage of the action and on such
against respondents including all rights, terms as are just. For the CA to say that, as
interests, claims, and causes of action arising between Metrobank and petitioner, “only one
out of the load and mortgage agreements of them is clothed with the personality to
between Metrobank and respondents. ARC in actively participate in the proceedings below” is
trun assigned its credit to herein petitioner. to show a regrettable lack of understanding of
the rules and an unwarranted restriction of the
Petitioner prayed that it be substituted in lieu of
trial court’s discretion.
Metrobank in proceedings before the RTC. The
motion was opposed by respondents. They The rationale for allowing parties to join in a
alleged that they were entitled to a full proceeding that delves on a common question
disclosure of the details of the sale, as well as of law or fact concerning them is trial
the transfer and assignment of their debt convenience; i.e., to save the parties
unnecessary work, trouble and expense. In
order to meet the requirements of justice and
convenience, the rule on the joinder of parties
is construed with considerable flexibility. Hence,
courts are given broad discretion in determining
who may properly be joined in a proceeding.
The rules also provide that in case of a transfer
of interest, the court, upon motion, may direct
the person to whom the interest is transferred
to be substituted in the action or joined with
the original party.

Indeed, a transferee pendente lite is a proper

party that stands exactly in the shoes of the
transferor, the original party. Transferees are
bound by the proceedings and judgment in the
case, such that there is no need for them to be
included or impleaded by name. We have even
gone further and said that the transferee is
joined or substituted in the pending action by
operation of law from the exact moment when
the transfer of interest is perfected between
the original party and the transferee.