ARCADIO and MARIA LUISA CARANDANG

- versus –
HEIRS OF QUIRINO A. DE GUZMAN
G.R. No. 160347 November 29, 2006
FACTS:
Quirino de Guzman and the Spouses Carandang are stockholders as well as
corporate officers of Mabuhay Broadcasting System.
On November 26, 1983, the capital stock of MBS was increased and was
subscribed by the spouses Carandang. De Guzman claims that, part of the payment for
these subscriptions were paid by him and thus, on March 31, 1992, sent a demand letter
to the spouses Carandang for the payment of said total amount.
The spouses Carandang refused to pay the amount, contending that a pre-
incorporation agreement was executed, whereby de Guzman promised to pay for the
stock subscriptions of the former without cost, in consideration for Arcadio Carandang’s
technical expertise, his newly purchased equipment, and his skill in repairing and
upgrading radio/communication equipment therefore, there is no indebtedness on their
part.
On June 5, 1992, de Guzman filed his complaint. After trial on the merits, the trial
court decided in favor of de Guzman. The Court of Appeals affirmed the same.
ISSUE:
I. Whether or not the RTC should have dismissed the case for failure to state a
cause of action, considering that Milagros de Guzman, allegedly an
indispensable party, was not included as a party-plaintiff.
RULING:
No. the SC agrees with the CA in its ruling that the joint account of spouses Quirino
de Guzman and Milagros de Guzman is part of their conjugal property and under both the
Civil Code and the Family Code, the husband alone may institute an action for the
recovery or protection of the spouses’ conjugal property.
Petitioners erroneously interchange the terms “real party in interest” and “indispensable
party.”
 A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment of the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
 An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination
can be had of an action.
  A necessary party which is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined
as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a
complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.
The spouses Carandang are indeed correct that “if a suit is not brought in the name
of or against the real party in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that
the complaint states no cause of action.” However, what dismissal on this ground entails
is an examination of whether the parties presently pleaded are interested in the outcome
of the litigation, and not whether all persons interested in such outcome are actually
pleaded.
The latter query is relevant in discussions concerning indispensable and necessary
parties, but not in discussions concerning real parties in interest. Both indispensable and
necessary parties are considered as real parties in interest, since both classes of parties
stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the judgment
rendered against the spouses Carandang, is hereby AFFIRMED.