UY v. CA Petitioners William Uy and Rodel Roxas are agents authorized to sell 8 parcels of land by the owners.

Petitioners then offered to sell the lands in Tuba, Tadiangan, Benguet to respondent National Housing authority (NHA) for its housing project. The NHA Board passed a resolution approving the acquisition of said lands at the cost of P23.867 million. Of the 8 parcels of land, only 5 were paid by NHA because it received a report that the remaining area is an active landslide area. Hence, the board cancelled the sale of the 3 parcels and offered the amount of P1.225M to landowners as danios perjuicios. Petitioners, then, filed before RTC Quezon City a complaint for damages against NHA and its general manager Balao. After trial, RTC declared the cancellation to be justified but awarded damages to plaintiff. Upon appeal to CA, it reversed the decision and held that there was justifiable basis in cancelling the sale and no reason for award of damages. It also ruled that petitioners are mere attorney in fact and hence not the real party in interest. Issue: Whether the respondent CA erred in dismissing the complaint finding that the petitioners failed to join as indispensable party plaintiff the selling lot owners Held: NO. Petitioners claim that they lodged the complaint not in behalf of their principals but in their own name as agents damaged by the termination of the contract. The court finds this unmeritorious. Section 2 Rule 3 of rules of court requires that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Moreover, it is said that an action shall be prosecuted in the name of the party who, by substantive laws, has right sought to be enforced. Under article 1311 of the Civil code, contracts take effect only between parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where rights are transmissible. In this case, petitioners are not parties to the contract. They are mere agents and as such they only render some service or do something in representation of their principals. Neither are they heirs of the principals. Petitioners also failed to show that they are assignees since they have not established any agreement granting them the right to receive payment and out of the proceeds to reimburse themselves for advances and commissions before turning over to the principal.