Scribd
Upload
53 views1 page

Relucio Vs

The case involved a petition filed by a wife against her husband and his alleged partner seeking sole administration of the conjugal property. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition did not establish a cause of action against the partner as she was a complete stranger to the causes of action. It also held that the partner was not a real party in interest and thus not an indispensable party to the case.

Uploaded by

Rocky C. Baliao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
53 views1 page

Relucio Vs

The case involved a petition filed by a wife against her husband and his alleged partner seeking sole administration of the conjugal property. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition did not establish a cause of action against the partner as she was a complete stranger to the causes of action. It also held that the partner was not a real party in interest and thus not an indispensable party to the case.

Uploaded by

Rocky C. Baliao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Relucio vs. LopezGR# 138497 / JAN.

16, 2001373 SCRA 578

Facts:

Angelina Mejia Lopez filed a petition for “Appointment as Sole Administratix of Conjugal
Partnership of Properties, Forfeiture, etc.” against Alberto Lopez and herein petitioner Imelda
Relucio. It was alleged by herein private respondent that Alberto Lopez is legally married to her,
abandoned the latter and their legitimate children, maintained an illicit relationship and
cohabited with herein petitioner and that he arrogated unto herself full and exclusive control of
administration of the conjugal property. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
private respondent has no cause of action against her which was denied by the Regional Trial
Court on the ground that she is impleaded as a necessary or indispensable party. On the Court
of Appeals, the petition on certiorari filed by the Petitioner assailing the trial courts denial of her
motion to dismiss was likewise denied. Hence, this appeal.

Issue

[1]: Whether respondent’s petition for appointment as sole administratrix of the conjugal
property accounting etc. against her husband Alberto Lopez established a cause of action
against the petitioner.Issue [2]: Whether the petitioner is a real party in interest.

Held

[1]:The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. It is well settled that a cause of action is an act or
omission of one party, the defendant in violation of the legal right of the other. The elements of
the cause of action are: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to
respect or not to violate such right; (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in
violation of the right of the plaintiff as constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant
to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. A perusal of
the “Nature of the Complaint” filed by the respondent reveals that it is a complaint by an
aggrieved party wife against her husband. Nowhere in the allegations does it appear that relief
is sought against petitioner. The causes of action filed by respondent showed that petitioner is a
complete stranger to the causes of action as regards judicial appointment, accounting by
respondent husband, forfeiture of share of husband and support. Clearly, there is no right-duty
relation between petitioner and respondent that can possibly support a cause of action. Held

[2]: A real party in interest if one who stands “to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the
suit.” In this case, petitioner would not be affected by any judgment in the special proceedings
filed by the respondent. It petitioner is not a real party in interest, she cannot be an
indispensable party. An indispensable party is one without whom no there can be no final
determination of an action.

You might also like