Galicia v.

Manliquez
*case is more on parties to a civil action
FACTS:
A complaint was filed in the RTC of Rombon by herein petitioners, as heirs of Juan
Galicia, alleging that they are the true owners of a parcel of land occupied by Milagros and
her tenants.
The case went to trial but the Milagros et al were declared in default. Petitioners
were allowed to present their evidence ex parte. As a result the judgment rendered was in
favor of petitioners.
However, an answer-in-intervention was filed by the compulsory heirs of a certain
Ines. Among the compulsory heirs were herein respondents, who are also co-heirs of
defendant Milagros. The intervenors contended that the subject parcel of land forms part of
the estate of Ines which is yet to be partitioned among them; an intestate proceeding is
presently pending in the RTC of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 81; the outcome of this case,
would adversely affect their interest; their rights would be better protected in the said civil
case; and their intervention would not unduly delay, or in any way prejudice the rights of
the original parties. Motion to intervene was denied for having been received after
judgment.
An appeal was made by Milagros et al to the RTC judgment to the CA but was
denied. A writ of execution was issued.
A petition for annulment of judgment was filed to the CA. The CA annulled the
decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
WON the motion to intervene should have been granted.
WON the annulment of the decision of the RTC by the CA was valid.

HELD:
The motion to intervene should have been granted.
It is true that the allowance and disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed
to the sound discretion of the court hearing the case. However, jurisprudence is replete with
cases wherein the Court ruled that a motion to intervene may be entertained or allowed
even if filed after judgment was rendered by the trial court, especially in cases where the
intervenors are indispensable parties.
Since it is not disputed that herein respondents are compulsory heirs of Ines who
stand to be affected by the judgment of the trial court, the latter should have granted their
Motion to Intervene and should have admitted their Answer-in-Intervention.