This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| An indispensable party is one who has an interest in the controversy or subject matter and in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete or equitable.[2] Here, since the subject properties belong to PSALM Corp. and TRANSCO, they are certainly indispensable parties to the case that must be necessarily included before it may properly go forward. For this reason, the proceedings below that held the NPC liable for the local franchise tax is a nullity. It did not matter where the RTC Decision was appealed, whether before the CA or the CTA. | |||||
|
2013-12-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| However, in the cases of Quilatan, et al. v. Heirs of Quilatan, et al.[66] and Lagunilla, et al. v. Monis, et al.,[67] the Court remanded the case to the RTC for the impleading of indispensable parties. On the other hand, in Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz,[68] PepsiCo, Inc. v. Emerald Pizza,[69] and Valdez-Tallorin, v. Heirs of Tarona, et al.,[70] the Court directly ordered that the indispensable parties be impleaded. | |||||
|
2013-11-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| x x x. The petitioner is not necessarily entitled to have the land registered under the Torrens system simply because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the registration of his land. He must show, even though there is no opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute owner, in fee simple. Courts are not justified in registering property under the Torrens system, simply because there is no opposition offered. Courts may, even in the absence of any opposition, deny the registration of the land under the Torrens system, upon the ground that the facts presented did not show that the petitioner is the owner, in fee simple, of the land which he is attempting to have registered. The Court is not unmindful of the principle of immutability of judgments, that nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable.[80] Such principle, however, must yield to the basic rule that a decision which is null and void for want of jurisdiction of the trial court is not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become final and executory.[81] | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter of a case that a final adjudication cannot be made in his or her absence, without injuring or affecting that interest. He or she is a party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but "an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting [that] interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has also been considered that an indispensable party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete or equitable." Further, an indispensable party is one who must be included in an action before it may properly proceed.[44] | |||||
|
2011-03-08 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A person who is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an indispensable party if his presence would merely permit a complete relief between him and those already parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the subject matter of the action. It is not a sufficient reason to declare a person to be an indispensable party that his presence will avoid multiple litigation.[15] | |||||