Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 171916 2009-12-04	CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL v. LOURDES S. PASCUAL PERALTA, J.
The said doctrine, however, is applicable only when the judgment or decision is valid. In the present case, as earlier pronounced, and as ruled by the CA, the judgment in question is void, the RTC not having acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. It is a well-entrenched principle that a void judgment can never become final. As ruled by this Court in Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Alejo:[43]
	GR NO. 161955 2005-08-31	CELEDONIO MOLDES v. TIBURCIO VILLANUEVA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Likewise, in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Hon. Floro T. Alejo,[28] the Court ruled that the evident aim and intent of the Rules regarding the joinder of indispensable and necessary parties is a complete determination of all possible issues, not only between the parties themselves but also as regards to other persons who may be affected by the judgment. A valid judgment cannot even be rendered where there is want of indispensable parties.