Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CELEDONIO MOLDES v. TIBURCIO VILLANUEVA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 196894 2014-03-03	JESUS G. CRISOLOGO v. JEWM AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
The reason behind this compulsory joinder of indispensable parties is the complete determination of all possible issues, not only between the parties themselves but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment.[18]
	GR No. 177429 2009-11-24	ANICIA VALDEZ-TALLORIN v. HEIRS OF JUANITO TARONA ABAD, J.
Judgments do not bind strangers to the suit. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void. Indeed, it would have no authority to act, not only as to the absent party, but as to those present as well. And where does the responsibility for impleading all indispensable parties lie? It lies in the plaintiff.[18]
	GR No. 177113 2009-10-02	STA. LUCIA REALTY v. SPS. FRANCISCO AND EMELIA* BUENAVENTURA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Having transferred all rights and obligations over Lot 3, Block 4, Phase II to respondents, Alfonso could no longer be considered as an indispensable party. An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest.[13] Contrary to petitioner's claim, Alfonso no longer has an interest on the subject matter or the present controversy, having already sold her rights and interests on Lot 3, Block 4, Phase II to herein respondents.
	GR No. 183059 2009-08-28	ELY QUILATAN v. HEIRS OF LORENZO QUILATAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Moldes v. Villanueva,[8] the Court held that: An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest. A party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. In Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo v. Herbert Markus Emil Scheer, the Court held that the joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, with no authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present. The responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the petitioner/plaintiff.
	GR NO. 169276 2009-06-16	DIONISIA MONIS LAGUNILLA v. ANDREA MONIS VELASCO NACHURA, J.
The general rule with reference to parties to a civil action requires the joinder of all necessary parties, where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions.[18] The evident intent of the Rules on the joinder of indispensable and necessary parties is the complete determination of all possible issues, not only between the parties themselves but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment.[19]