Antecedent

Facts Application of Law

Navaro c • Roger Navarro entered into a 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

Escobido lease agreement with option to
purchase with Glenn O. Go , of every action must be
Kargo Enterprises, for a Fuso prosecuted or defended in the
truck with a mounted crane. name of the real party-in-
• Navarro delivered six post- interest, i.e., the party who
dated checks, each in the stands to be benefited or
amount of ₱66,333.33 for the injured by the judgment in the
rentals. The 5th and 6th checks suit, or the party entitled to the
were dishonored when avails of the suit
presented for payment, due to
insufficient funds -Karen is a party as owner of
• Demands were made for Kargo Enterprises. Glenn Go is
Navarro to pay the balance of merely a manager, so Karen is
₱132,666.66, or to return the the real party in interest.
vehicle. This was to no avail
• RTC issued writs of replevin, Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Civil
leading to the seizure of the Procedure & Article 44, CC
vehicles and their delivery to
Kargo enterprises, as a sole
Karen Go.
proprietorship, is neither a
• Navarro claimed the defense of
no cause of action since Karen natural person nor a juridical
is not a party to the agreement. person
RTC ordered Karen to file a -it cannot, therefore, be a party
motion to include Glenn Go as
to a civil suit
plaintiff.
• RTC denied Navarro defense. -Juasong Hardware v Mendoza
CA affirmed RTC
• SC DENIED NAVARO REVIEW -suit should have been brought
in the name of the owner,
adding such phrase as “doing
business as Huasing Hardware”

Article 160 of the New Civil Code

"all property of the marriage is

presumed to be conjugal
partnership, unless it be
prove[n] that it pertains
exclusively to the husband or to
the wife."

-Kargo Enterprises is conjugal

property

Article 124 of the Family Code

-“The administration and
 enjoyment of the conjugal
partnership property shall
belong to both spouses jointly.”

-Allows either Karen or Glenn

to speak in behalf of the
business

Article 1811 of the Civil Code

-(1) A partner, subject to the
provisions of this Title and to
any agreement between the
partners, has an equal right
with his partners to possess
specific partnership property
for partnership purposes; xxx

Art. 108.Family Code

The conjugal partnership shall

be governed by the rules on the
contract of partnership in all
that is not in conflict with what
is expressly determined in this
Chapter or by the spouses in
their marriage settlements.

This provision is practically the

same as the Civil Code
provision it superseded:

Art. 147. Civil Code

The conjugal partnership shall

be governed by the rules on the
contract of partnership in all
that is not in conflict with what
is expressly determined in this
Chapter.

Article 1811 of the Civil Code

"[a] partner is a co-owner with

the other partners of specific
partnership property."

Article 487 of the Civil Code and

 relevant jurisprudence

All co-owners may bring an

action, any kind of action, for
the recovery of co-owned
properties. Therefore, only one
of the co-owners, namely the
co-owner who filed the suit for
the recovery of the co-owned
property, is an indispensable
party thereto. The other co-
owners are not indispensable
parties. They are not even
necessary parties, for a
complete relief can be accorded
in the suit even without their
participation, since the suit is
presumed to have been filed for
the benefit of all co-owners.
Since Glenn Go is not strictly an
indispensable party in the
action to recover possession of
the leased vehicles, he only
needs to be impleaded as a pro-
forma party to the suit, based
on Section 4, Rule 4 of the
Rules, which states:

Section 4. Spouses as parties. –

Husband and wife shall sue or be sued
jointly, except as provided by law.