1.

May a property co-owner file a suit without joining other
co-owners?

ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an
action in ejectment.

This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession.
Article 487 includes forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal),
recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and recovery of ownership
(accion de reivindicacion).[26] A co-owner may bring such an action without
the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the
suit is presumed to have been filed to benefit his co-owners. It should be
stressed, however, that where the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone
who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the
litigated property, the action should be dismissed.[27]

A co-owner may bring such an action, without the necessity of joining all the other
co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the
benefit of all. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that
he claims possession for himself and not for the co-ownership, the action
will not prosper.

2. Is there any distinction between lack of “capacity to sue””
from lack of “personality to sue”?

Before anything else, it should be clarified that the plaintiff has no legal
capacity to sue and the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of
[23]

action are two different grounds for a motion to dismiss or are two different
[24]

affirmative defenses. Failure to distinguish between the lack of legal capacity
to sue from the lack of personality to sue is a fairly common mistake. The
difference between the two is explained by this Court in Columbia Pictures,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals: [25]

Among the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the Rules of Court are lack
of legal capacity to sue and that the complaint states no cause of action.
Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in the exercise of
his civil rights, or does not have the necessary qualification to appear in the
case, or does not have the character or representation he claims. On the
other hand, a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof
that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to

On the other hand. In the latter instance. such as on account of minority. Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court. The court may only dismiss an action motu proprio in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Correspondingly. It should have waited for a motion to dismiss or a responsive pleading from respondent. res judicata and prescription. The term "lack of capacity to sue" should not be confused with the term "lack of personality to sue. Can an extraterritorial service of summons be resorted to in an action for personam? As a rule. Is non inclusion of an indispensable party a ground for dismissal? ." While the former refers to a plaintiffs general disability to sue. our courts cannot try the case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court. and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential.in-interest. insanity. on the face thereof. when the defendant in an action in personam does not reside and is not found in the Philippines. lack of juridical personality or any other general disqualifications of a party. Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. but when the case is an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15. Therefore. Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction over the res.state a cause of action. extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant. so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Can a court motu proprio dismiss a case? Rule 9. the first can be a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the ground of lack of legal capacity to sue. before dismissing the petition. 4. whereas the second can be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the complaint. the latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real party. 3. and such extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction. 5. and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded. evidently states no cause of action. incompetence. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. litis pendentia. but for the purpose of complying with the requirements of fair play or due process. raising the objection or affirmative defense of improper venue. the trial court in this case erred when it dismissed the petition motu proprio.

At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just. parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. or equitable. there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective. In his absence. not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. 37 the absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void. complete. for want of authority to act. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.38 The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. (Emphases and 40 underscoring supplied) . and without whom no final determination of the case can be had." Thus. 7.Section 7.: SEC. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. "An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the litigation. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court. The party’s interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order.– Parties-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. viz. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court mandates that all indispensable parties should be joined in a suit.