Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NIEVES PLASABAS v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 168979 2013-12-02	REBECCA PACAÑA-CONTRERAS v. ROVILA WATER SUPPLY BRION, J.
In Plasabas, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[65] the Court held that the trial court and the CA committed reversible error when they summarily dismissed the case, after both parties had rested their cases following a protracted trial, on the sole ground of failure to implead indispensable parties. Non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
	GR No. 194024 2012-04-25	PHILIP L. GO v. DISTINCTION PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT MENDOZA, J.
Similarly, in the case of Plasabas v. Court of Appeals,[33] the Court held that a final decree would necessarily affect the rights of indispensable parties so that the Court could not proceed without their presence. In support thereof, the Court in Plasabas cited the following authorities, thus: "The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power. (Borlasa v. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345, 348) For this reason, our Supreme Court has held that when it appears of record that there are other persons interested in the subject matter of the litigation, who are not made parties to the action, it is the duty of the court to suspend the trial until such parties are made either plaintiffs or defendants. (Pobre, et al. v. Blanco, 17 Phil. 156). x x x Where the petition failed to join as party defendant the person interested in sustaining the proceeding in the court, the same should be dismissed. x x x When an indispensable party is not before the court, the action should be dismissed. (People, et al. v. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. Nos. L-14059-62, September 30, 1959) (sic)
	GR No. 182645 2010-12-15	IN MATTER OF HEIRSHIP OF LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ v. JAIME M. ROBLES PERALTA, J.
The rule is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.[9] The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.[10] Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or at such times as are just.[11] If petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the plaintiff's/petitioner's failure to comply therewith.[12]
	GR No. 179169 2010-03-03	LEONIS NAVIGATION CO. v. CATALINO U. VILLAMATER NACHURA, J.
The proper remedy is to implead the indispensable party at any stage of the action. The court, either motu proprio or upon the motion of a party, may order the inclusion of the indispensable party or give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint in order to include indispensable parties. If the plaintiff ordered to include the indispensable party refuses to comply with the order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion. Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order to include or to amend is the action dismissed.[30]
	GR No. 182585 2009-11-27	JOSEPHINE MARMO v. MOISES O. ANACAY BRION, J.
We have explained in Vencilao v. Camarenta[31] and in Sering v. Plazo[32] that the term "action in ejectment" includes a suit for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio).[33] We also noted in Sering that the term "action in ejectment" includes "also, an accion publiciana (recovery of possession) or accion reinvidicatoria[34] (recovery of ownership)." Most recently in Estreller v. Ysmael,[35] we applied Article 487 to an accion publiciana case; in Plasabas v. Court of Appeals[36] we categorically stated that Article 487 applies to reivindicatory actions.
	GR No. 177429 2009-11-24	ANICIA VALDEZ-TALLORIN v. HEIRS OF JUANITO TARONA ABAD, J.
But the Taronas' action cannot be dismissed outright. As the Court held in Plasabas v. Court of Appeals,[22] the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal. Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties and allows the amendment of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, through motion or on order of the court on its own initiative. Only if plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party, despite the order of the court, may it dismiss the action.