Real Party-In-Interst: (Sec. 2, Rule 3)

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 4

b.

That the spouse of the petitioner has


been judicially declared an absentee;
c. That loss of parental authority of the
spouse of petitioner has been
decreed by the court;
d. That the spouse of the petitioner has
abandoned the latter or failed to
comply with his or her obligations to
the family as provided for in Art.
101;
e. That the spouse granted the power
of administration in the marriage
settlements has abused that power;
and
f. That at the time of the petition, the
spouses have been separated in fact
for at least one year and
reconciliation is highly improbable.
5. Art. 142 - The administration of all classes of
exclusive property of either spouse may be
transferred by the court to the other spouse:
a. When one spouse becomes the
guardian of the other;
b. When one spouse is judicially declared
an absentee;
c. When one spouse is sentenced to a
penalty which carries with it civil
interdiction; or
d. When one spouse becomes a fugitive
from justice or is in hiding as an
accused in a criminal case.
NOTE: If the other spouse is not qualified by
reason of incompetence, conflict of interest, or
any other just cause, the court shall appoint a
suitable person to be the administrator.
REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST;
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES;
REPRESENTATIVES AS PARTIES;
NECESSARY PARTIES; INDIGENT PARTIES;
ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS
Kinds of parties in a civil action (RIR-NIP)
1. Real parties in interest;
2. Indispensable parties;
3. Representatives as parties;
4. Necessary parties;
5. Indigent parties; and
6. Pro-forma parties.
REAL PARTY-IN-INTERST
He or she is the party who stands to be: (BIE)
1. Benefited;
2. Injured by the judgment in the suit; or
3. The party entitled to the avails of the suit
(Sec. 2, Rule 3)
NOTE: The interest must be ‘real,’ which is a
present substantial interest as distinguished
from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent
subordinate or consequential interest. (Rayo v.
Metrobank, G.R. No. 165142, December 10,
2007) It is an interest that is material and
direct, as distinguished from a mere incidental
interest in the question. (Samaniego v. Aguila,
G.R. No. 125567, June 27, 2000)
Reasons why actions should be filed under
the name of the real-party-in-interest
1. To prevent the prosecution of actions by
persons without any right, title or interest in
the case;
2. To require that the actual party entitled to
legal relief be the one to prosecute the
action;
3. To avoid multiplicity of suits; and
4. To discourage litigation and keep it within
certain bounds, pursuant to sound public
policy. (Albano, 2017, citing Oco v. Limbaring,
G.R. No. 161298, January 31, 2006; Stronghold
Ins. Co., v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 173297, March 6,
2013)
NOTE: The mere failure to include the name of
a party in the title of the complaint is not fatal
because the Rules of Court requires the courts
to pierce the form and go into the substance
and not be misled by a false or wrong name in
the pleadings. Hence, if the body indicates the
defendant as a party to the action, his omission
in the title is not fatal. (Vlason Enterprises v. CA,
310 SCRA 26, 58-59, G.R. Nos. 121662-64, July 6,
1999)
Q: Miñoza is a duly licensed owner operator
of a cockpit. His temporary license to
operate a new cockpit was revoked.
Thereafter, a public bidding for a 25-year
franchise of the cockpit operation was
opened. Among four of the qualified parties
that submitted their cash bids were Marcelo
Epe and Miñoz’s uncle, Jose Uy. Miñoza did
not personally join the bidding. Marcelo
won in the public bidding and was granted
the franchise. Miñoza filed a case to annul
REMEDIAL LAW
46
U NIVERSITYOFSANTOTOMAS
2 02 1G OLDENN OTES
the bidding process and grant of franchise
to Marcelo. The trial court dismissed the
complaint. Can Miñoza file the suit?
A: NO. Miñ oza, not being one of the bidders
clearly has no personality to contest the
alleged rigged bidding and grant of the
franchise to Marcelo. Every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party-in-interest, who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit. By real
interest is meant a present substantial interest,
as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a
future, contingent, subordinate, or
consequential interest” (Miñoza v. Lopez, G.R.
No. 170914, April 13, 2011).
Q: The heirs of Hilaria and Elena affirmed
the waiver of rights over a property in favor
of Francisca. However, some of the heirs
refused to do so. This prompted Francisca
to file an action for quieting of title.
Estanislao De Vera, not a named defendant
in the case, filed an answer, presenting
himself as the real party-in-interest on the
ground that some of the named defendants
executed a Deed of Renunciation of Rights
in his favor. The RTC admitted his answer
but, later on, set it aside and ordered him to
file a pleading-in-intervention. Can De Vera
participate in the case without filing a
pleading-in-intervention?
A: YES. De Vera is not a stranger to the action
but a transferee pendente lite. His interest
cannot be considered and tried separately from
the interest of the named defendants as his
rights were derived from them. De Vera’s
interest is not independent of the interest of
the named defendants. There may be no need
for the transferee pendente lite to be
substituted or joined in the case because, in
legal contemplation, he is not really denied
protection as his interest is one and the same
as his transferors, who are already parties to
the case (Medrano v. De Vera, G.R. No. 165770,
August 9, 2010).
Sole proprietorship has no juridical
personality separate and distinct from the
personality of the owner
The law merely recognizes the existence of a
sole proprietorship as a form of business
organization conducted for profit by a single
individual and requires its proprietor or owner
to secure licenses and permits, register its
business name, and pay taxes to the national
government. The law does not vest a separate
legal personality on the sole proprietorship or
empower it to file or defend an action in court.
The proprietor or proprietress can be
considered as a real party-in-interest and has a
standing to file a case. (Stanley Fine Furniture,
Elena v. Gallano, G.R. No. 190486, November 26,
2014, as penned by J. Leonen)
Pro forma party
One who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant,
not because such party has any real interest in
the subject matter or because any relief is
demanded, but merely because the technical
rules of pleadings require the presence of such
party on the record. (Samaniego v. Agulia, G.R.
No. 125567, June 27, 2000)
INDISPENSABLE PARTY
Party in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action. (Sec. 7,
Rule 3) An indispensable party is one whose
interest in the subject matter of the suit and
the relief sought are so inextricably
intertwined with other parties that his legal
presence as a party to the proceeding is an
absolute necessity. (Riano, 2019, citing
Benedicto-Muñoz v. Cacho-Olivares, G.R. No.
179121, November 9, 2015)
NOTE: The joinder of indispensable parties is
mandatory. The presence of indispensable
parties is necessary to vest the court with
jurisdiction, which is "the authority to hear and
determine a cause, the right to act in a case".
(Lottte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No.
166302, July 28, 2005) 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 as to those present. (Riano,
2014)
Tests to determine whether a party is an
indispensable party
1. Can relief be afforded to the plaintiff without

You might also like