This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-12-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Tested by the foregoing definition, private respondent in this case is clearly a real party in interest. It is not disputed that he is in possession of the lot pursuant to a valid lease. He is a possessor in the concept of a "holder of the thing" under Article 525 of the Civil Code.[23] He was impleaded as a defendant in the amended complaint in Civil Case No. 64931. Further, what petitioner seeks to enjoin is the building by respondent of a commercial structure on the lot. Clearly, it is private respondent's acts which are in issue, and his interest in said issue cannot be a mere incidental interest. In its amended complaint, petitioner prayed for, among others, judgment "ordering the demolition of all improvements illegally built on the lot in question."[24] These show that it is petitioner Mathay III, doing business as "Greenhills Autohaus, Inc.," and not only the Hermosos, who will be adversely affected by the court's decree. | |||||