Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARCADIO v. HEIRS OF QUIRINO A. DE GUZMAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173946 2013-06-19	BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES v. CA PEREZ, J.
The Court of Appeals, therefore, erred when it made a sweeping pronouncement in its questioned decision, stating that "issue on jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding, even for the first time on appeal" and that, therefore, respondent timely raised the issue in her motion to dismiss and is, consequently, not estopped from raising the question of jurisdiction. As the question of jurisdiction involved here is that over the person of the defendant Manuel, the same is deemed waived if not raised in the answer or a motion to dismiss. In any case, respondent cannot claim the defense since "lack of jurisdiction over the person, being subject to waiver, is a personal defense which can only be asserted by the party who can thereby waive it by silence."[39]
	GR No. 194024 2012-04-25	PHILIP L. GO v. DISTINCTION PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT MENDOZA, J.
The CA held that jurisdiction over PHCC, an indispensable party, was neither acquired nor waived by estoppel. Citing Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman,[12] it held that, in any event, the action should be dismissed because the absence of PHCC, an indispensable party, rendered all subsequent actuations of the court void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
	GR No. 182585 2009-11-27	JOSEPHINE MARMO v. MOISES O. ANACAY BRION, J.
In sum, respondent's children, as co-owners of the subject property, are not indispensable parties to the resolution of the case. We held in Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman[43] that in cases like this, the co-owners are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be accorded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of all.[44] Thus, the respondent's children need not be impleaded as party-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2919-03.
	GR No.153788 2009-11-27	ROGER V. NAVARRO v. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO BRION, J.
While ejectment is normally associated with actions involving real property, we find that this rule can be applied to the circumstances of the present case, following our ruling in Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman.[24] In this case, one spouse filed an action for the recovery of credit, a personal property considered conjugal property, without including the other spouse in the action. In resolving the issue of whether the other spouse was required to be included as a co-plaintiff in the action for the recovery of the credit, we said:Milagros de Guzman, being presumed to be a co-owner of the credits allegedly extended to the spouses Carandang, seems to be either an indispensable or a necessary party.If she is an indispensable party, dismissal would be proper.If she is merely a necessary party, dismissal is not warranted, whether or not there was an order for her inclusion in the complaint pursuant to Section 9, Rule 3.
	GR No. 176405 2008-08-20	LEO WEE v. GEORGE DE CASTRO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the more recent case of Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman,[21] this Court declared that a co-owner is not even a necessary party to an action for ejectment, for complete relief can be afforded even in his absence, thus:In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and the relevant jurisprudence, any one of them may bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be afforded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners.