7/21/2019 Bulawan v Aquende

1/1

BULAWAN v. AQUENDEJune 22, 2011 | Carpio, J.| Petition for Review on Certiorari | Compulsory and Permissive Joinder of Parties

PETITIONER: Maximina BulawanRESPONDENT: Emerson !uendeSUMMARY: Bulawan filed a "omplaint for annulment of title a#ainst $ap wit%out t%e

&nowled#e of !uende w%o also %ad interest over t%e par"el of land '%e trial "ourt ruled inBulawan(s favor and a writ of exe"ution was sent to !uende) !uende "laimed t%at t%erewas extrinsi" fraud and la"& of *urisdi"tion +e"ause %e wasn(t impleaded despite Bulawan(s

&nowled#e of t%e existin# title in %is name and t%us, prevented %im from parti"ipatin# in t%e

pro"eedin#s and prote"tin# %is title) C ruled t%at !uende is an indispensa+le party and t%e

trial "ourt did not a"!uire *urisdi"tion over %is person +e"ause %e was not impleaded in t%e"ase) -e must +e *oined as plaintiff under e") ., Rule / of RoC)

DOCTRINE:e") ., Rule / of RoC Compulsory jo!"#r o$ !"sp#!s%&l# p%r'#s

Parties in interest wit%out w%om no final determination "an +e %ad of an a"tion s%all +e *oinedeit%er as plaintiffs or defendants)

(ACTS:

Petitioner Bulawan "laimed t%at s%e is t%e owner of a

"ertain par"el of land Lo' No. )*+,-B.%e filed a

"omplaint for annulment of title, re"onveyan"e and

dama#es a#ainst 3ourdes $ap w%o "laimed to +e t%eowner of t%e same property) 4n %er answer, $ap

"laimed t%at it(s Lo' No. )*+,-A t%at s%e owned

w%ile t%e !uende family owned Lo' No. )*+,-B.

'rial Court ruled in favor of Bulawan as t%e ri#%tful

owner and possessor) $ap appealed +ut t%e C

dismissed it) Re#ister of 5eeds informed respondent

!uende of t%e trial "ourt(s writ of exe"ution a#ainst

%is property) A/u#!"# %ll#0#" '1%' 1# 2%s u!%2%r#o$ %!y l'0%'o! !volv!0 1s prop#r'y 1%v!0

r#3#v#" !o summo!s or !o'3# o$ %"v#rs# 3l%m.

!uende filed a '%ird Party Claim a#ainst t%e writ of

exe"ution +e"ause it affe"ted %is property and t%at %e

is not +ound +y t%e trial "ourt(s de"ision for not +ein#

a party to it) '%e Cler& of Court said t%at a '%irdParty Claim was not t%e proper remedy +e"ause t%e

s%eriff did not levy upon or sei6e %is property) -e

t%en filed a 7oti"e of ppearan"e wit% '%ird Party

Motion +ut t%is was also denied)

'%ereafter, %e filed a petition for annulment of*ud#ment +efore t%e C due to extrinsi" fraud and

la"& of *urisdi"tion) -e ar#ued t%at t%ere wasextrinsi" fraud w%en Bulawan failed to implead %im

despite %er &nowled#e of t%e existin# title in %is

name and t%us, prevented %im from parti"ipatin# in

t%e pro"eedin#s and prote"tin# %is title) lso, %e is anindispensa+le party and t%e trial "ourt did not a"!uire

*urisdi"tion over %is person +e"ause %e was not

impleaded in t%e "ase) C ruled in favor of !uenda)

ISSUE4S:

1) 897 annulment of *ud#ment is t%e proper

remedy YES

2) 897 !uende is a proper party to sue fort%e annulment of t%e *ud#ment : YES

RULIN5:Petition denied) C(s de"ision affirmed in

favor of !uende))

RATIO:

1) '%e *ud#ment may +e annulled as t%ere was

extrinsi" fraud and la"& of *urisdi"tion under Rule ;.,

e") 2 of RoC1) rounds for annulment '%e annulment may +e +ased only ont%e #rounds of extrinsi" fraud and la"& of *urisdi"tion)

2Compulsory *oinder of indispensa+le parties Parties in interestwit%out w%om no final determination "an +e %ad of an a"tion s%all

+e *oined eit%er as plaintiffs or defendants)