This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory.[25] It is a condition sine qua non to the exercise of judicial power.[26] The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[27] Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain finality.[28] One who is not a party to a case is not bound by any decision of the court; otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to due process.[29] That is why the case is generally remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.[30] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| However, if the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, as in Civil Case No. 1330, the action will not prosper unless he impleads the other co-owners who are indispensable parties.[32] The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[33] The trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over the indispensable parties who are not impleaded in the case, and judgment thereon cannot be valid and binding against them. A decision that is null and void for want of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court is not a decision in contemplation of law; hence, it can never become final and executory.[34] | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| First, annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[19] Thus, it may not be invoked (1) where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedy and lost; or (2) where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.[20] We, therefore, agree with the CA that the remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment is no longer available to petitioners since their predecessor-in-interest, Maura So, had already availed herself of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting,[20] and only if the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through proceedings attended by extrinsic fraud.[21] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Worth stressing, the action filed by Gonzales before the RTC is for specific performance to compel Priscilla to execute a deed of sale, involving real property which, however, does not belong to Priscilla but to Aristotle Manio, the son of Priscilla. The complaint only named as defendant Priscilla, joined by her spouse, yet Priscilla had no interest on the lot and can have no interest whatever in any judgment rendered. She was not acting in her own name, nor was she acting for the benefit of an undisclosed principal. The joinder of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non of the exercise of judicial powers, and the absence of indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[15] Accordingly, the failure to implead Aristotle Manio as defendant renders all proceedings in the Civil Case No. 2647, including the order granting the cancellation of TCT No. 16658 and issuance of a new title, null and void. | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Worth stressing, the action filed by Gonzales before the RTC is for specific performance to compel Priscilla to execute a deed of sale, involving real property which, however, does not belong to Priscilla but to Aristotle Manio, the son of Priscilla. The complaint only named as defendant Priscilla, joined by her spouse, yet Priscilla had no interest on the lot and can have no interest whatever in any judgment rendered. She was not acting in her own name, nor was she acting for the benefit of an undisclosed principal. The joinder of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non of the exercise of judicial powers, and the absence of indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[15] Accordingly, the failure to implead Aristotle Manio as defendant renders all proceedings in the Civil Case No. 2647, including the order granting the cancellation of TCT No. 16658 and issuance of a new title, null and void. | |||||