Kinds of parties in a civil action (RIR-NIP);;;

1. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST; 2. INDISPENSABLE PARTIES 3. 4. NECESSARY 5. INDIGENT PARTIES; AND 6. PRO-
** NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL REPRESENTATIV PARTIES FORMA
OF CASE- REMEDY-IMPLEAD. ES AS PARTIES PARTIES.

He or she is the party who stands to be: (BIE) WHOM

Party in interest without Where the ac- Those who are He or she is one: Pro forma
tion is allowed not indispen- party One
NO FINAL DETERMINATION to be prosecu- sable but 1. Whose gross income AND that of his who is
1. BENEFITED; can be had of an action. (Sec. 7, Rule
ted and defen- OUGHT to be IMMEDIATE FAMILY DO NOT EXCEED an joined as a
2. INJURED by the judgment in the suit; or 3)
ded by a repre- joined as amount DOUBLE the monthly minimum wage plaintiff or
3. The party ENTITLED TO THE AVAILS sentative or defendant,
An indispensable party is one whose parties: of an employee
of the suit (Sec. 2, Rule 3) someone acting not because
interest in the subject matter of the 1. If complete
in a fiduciary relief is to be NOTE: The term "immediate family" includes such party
NOTE: The interest must be ‘real,’ which is a suit and the relief sought are so
inextricably intertwined with other
capacity, THE accorded to those members of the same household who has any real
PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST as BENEFICIARY those already are bound together by ties of relationship interest in
parties that his legal presence as a
distinguished from a mere expectancy or a SHALL BE parties; or the subject
party to the proceeding is an but does not include those who are living
future, contingent subordinate or INCLUDED IN 2. For a apart from the particular household of which matter or
consequential interest. (Rayo v. Metrobank, ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. (Riano, THE TITLE OF complete because any
2019, citing Benedicto-Muñoz v. THE CASE and the individual is a member (Tokio Marine
G.R. No. 165142, December 10, 2007) determination relief is
Cacho-Olivares, G.R. No. 179121, shall be deemed Malaya v. Valdez, G.R. No. 150107-08,
or settlement of January 28, 2008); and demanded,
November 9, 2015) to be the real but merely
It is an interest that is MATERIAL AND the claim
property in subject of the 2. Who DOES NOT OWN REAL PROPERTY because the
DIRECT, as distinguished from a mere NOTE: The joinder of indispensable interest. (Sec. 3,
incidental interest in the question. (Samaniego parties is MANDATORY. The Rule 3) action. (Sec. 8, with a fair market value as stated in the technical
v. Aguila, G.R. No. 125567, June 27, 2000) Rule 3) current tax declaration OF MORE THAN PHP rules of
presence of indispensable parties is
300,000.00. (Sec. 19, Rule 141 as amended by pleadings
necessary to vest the court with WHO MAY BE NOTE:When-
REASONS WHY ACTIONS SHOULD BE jurisdiction, which is "the authority to A.M. No. 04- 2-04-SC)
REPRESENTATIV ever in any
require
FILED UNDER THE NAME OF THE REAL- hear and determine a cause, the right the
ES: pleading in He or she is one who has no money or
PARTY-IN-INTEREST to act in a case". (Lottte Phil. Co., Inc. 1. A trustee of presence of
which a claim is property sufficient and available for food,
v. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 166302, an express trust such party
1. To prevent the prosecution of actions by July 28, 2005) asserted a shelter and basic necessities for himself and
trust; on the
persons without any right, title or interest in necessary party his family. (Sec. 21, Rule 3)
2. An executor record.
the case; is not joined,
The absence of an or (Samaniego
2. To require that the actual party entitled to the pleader shall NOTE: He or she shall be EXEMPT FROM THE
administrator; v. Agulia,
legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; indispensable party renders all and set forth his PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES.
G.R. No.
3. To avoid multiplicity of suits; and subsequent actions of the court name, if known,
3. A party 125567,
4. To discourage litigation AND keep it within NULL AND VOID for want of authorized by and shall state
June 27,
certain bounds, pursuant to sound public authority to act, not only as to the law why he is
or the 2000)
policy. (Albano, 2017, citing Oco v. Limbaring, absent parties but even as to those omitted. (Sec 9,
G.R. No. 161298, January 31, 2006; Stronghold present. (Riano, 2014) Rules. (Ibid.) Rule 3 For purposes of a suit in FORMA
Ins. Co., v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 173297, March 6, Where the
2013) RULE WHEN
PAUPERIS, an indigent litigant is not really plaintiff is
TESTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER A a pauper, but is properly a person who is an
PARTY IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY NOTE: An THE DEFEN- uncertain
indigent although not a public charge,
NOTE: The mere failure to include the name AGENT acting DANT’S NAME
OR IDENTITY IS
meaning that he has no property or income against
of a party in the title of the complaint is not 1. Can RELIEF be afforded to the in his own name sufficient for his support aside from his labor,
fatal because the Rules of Court requires the UNKNOWN who of
plaintiff WITHOUT the PRESENCE of and for the even if he is selfsupporting when able to
courts to pierce the form and go into the the other party? benefit of an work and in employment. (Tokio Marine
several
substance and not be misled by a false or He may be sued persons
2. Can the case be DECIDED on its undisclosed as the unknown Malaya v. Valdez, supra.)
wrong name in the pleadings. Hence, if the he is
merits WITHOUT PREJUDICING the principal may owner, heir,
body indicates the defendant as a party to the Rule on indigent litigants If the applicant for entitled to
rights of the other party? (Republic v. sue or be sued devisee, or by
action, his OMISSION IN THE TITLE IS NOT exemption meets the salary and property relief, he or
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July WITHOUT such other
FATAL. (Vlason Enterprises v. CA, 310 SCRA 26, requirements under Sec. 19, Rule 141, then may JOIN
15, 2003) JOINING the designation as
58-59, G.R. Nos. 121662-64, July 6, 1999) the grant of the application is any or all of
principal the case may
UNWILLING CO-PLAINTIFF MANDATORY. them in the
Q: Miñoza is a duly licensed owner operator EXCEPT when require. ALTERNATI
of a cockpit. His temporary license to operate the contract
HOWEVER, if the trial court finds that one or VE,
a new cockpit was revoked. Thereafter, a A party who is supposed to be a involves things HOWEVER,
both requirements have not been met, then although
public bidding for a 25-year franchise of the plaintiff but whose consent to be belonging to when his
cockpit operation was opened. Among four of joined cannot be obtained, as when he the principal. identity or true it would SET A HEARING to enable the a right to
the qualified parties that submitted their cash refuses to be a party to the name is applicant to prove that the applicant has “no relief
bids were Marcelo Epe and Miñoz’s uncle, discovered, the money or property sufficient and available for against one
action. He may be made a pleading must food, shelter and basic necessities for himself may be
Jose Uy. Miñoza did not personally join the defendant, and the reasons therefor
bidding. Marcelo won in the public bidding be amended and his family”, as provided in Sec. 21, Rule 3. inconsis-
shall be stated in the complaint. (Sec. accordingly.
and was granted the franchise. Miñoza filed a 10, Rule 3) tent with a
case to annul the bidding process and grant of (Sec. 14, Rule 3 In that hearing, the ADVERSE PARTY MAY right to
franchise to Marcelo. The trial court ADDUCE COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE to relief
Q: Conrado Nobleza, Sr. owned a 313-
dismissed the complaint. Can Miñoza file the disprove the evidence presented by the against the
square meter parcel of land located in
suit? applicant; after which the trial court will rule other. (Sec.
Iloilo City covered by (TCT) No. T-
on the application depending on the evidence 13, Rule 3)
12255. Upon Conrado’s death some
A: NO. Miñoza, not being one of the bidders adduced.
of his children sold their respective
clearly has no personality to contest the interests over the subject land to a
alleged rigged bidding and grant of the IN ADDITION, Sec. 21, Rule 3 also provides
certain Santiago for a consideration
franchise to Marcelo. Every action must be that the adverse party may later still contest
of 447,695.66, as embodied in a Deed
prosecuted or defended in the name of the the grant of such authority at any time before
of Extrajudicial Settlement or
real party-in-interest, who stands to be judgment is rendered by the trial court, Civil
Adjudication with Deed of Sale which
benefited or injured by the judgment in the Procedure 49 possibly based on newly
was, however, not signed by the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the discovered evidence not obtained at the time
other heirs who did not sell their
suit. By real interest is meant a present the application was heard. (Algura v. LGU of
respective shares. Because of this, he
substantial interest, as distinguished from a
mere expectancy or a future, contingent,
subordinate, or consequential interest”
(Miñoza v. Lopez, G.R. No. 170914, April 13,
2011).
Q: The heirs of Hilaria and Elena affirmed the
waiver of rights over a property in favor of
Francisca. However, some of the heirs refused
to do so. This prompted Francisca to file an
action for quieting of title. Estanislao De Vera,
not a named defendant in the case, filed an
answer, presenting himself as the real party-
in-interest on the ground that some of the
named defendants executed a Deed of
Renunciation of Rights in his favor. The RTC
admitted his answer but, later on, set it aside
and ordered him to file a pleading-in-
intervention. Can De Vera participate in the
case without filing a pleading-in-
intervention?
A: YES. De Vera is not a stranger to the action
but a transferee pendente lite. His interest
cannot be considered and tried separately
from the interest of the named defendants as
his rights were derived from them. De Vera’s
interest is not independent of the interest of
the named defendants. There may be no need
for the transferee pendente lite to be
substituted or joined in the case because, in
legal contemplation, he is not really denied
protection as his interest is one and the same
as his transferors, who are already parties to
the case (Medrano v. De Vera, G.R. No.
165770, August 9, 2010).
was not able to have TCT No. T12255 Naga, G.R. No. 150135, October 30, 2006)
cancelled and the subject document
registered. This prompted Santiago to AUTHORITY AS AN INDIGENT PARTY TO
file a Complaint for judicial partition LITIGATE INCLUDES AN EXEMPTION FROM
and for receivership. The RTC ordered THE PAYMENT OF:
the partition of the subject land
between Santiago and the heirs of 1. Docket fees and other lawful fees; and
Conrado who did not sign on the said
Deed. On appeal, the CA set aside the 2. Transcript of stenographic notes. (Sec. 21,
ruling of the RTC and held that the Rule 3)
heirs of Conrado who did not sign on
the said Deed are indispensable NOTE: The amount of the docket
parties to the judicial partition of the
subject land and, thus, their non-
and other lawful fees which the
inclusion as defendants in Santiago’s indigent was exempted from paying shall be a
complaint would necessarily result in LIEN ON ANY JUDGMENT rendered in the
its dismissal. Is the CA correct in case favorable to the indigent, unless
dismissing Santiago’s complaint for otherwise provided. (Sec. 21, Rule 3)
his failure to implead all the heirs of
Conrado?
A: NO. Although the heirs of Conrado
who are not impleaded in the
complaint are indispensable parties to
the case, the NONJOINDER OF
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES IS NOT A
GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL OF AN
ACTION. With regard to actions for
partition, Section 1, Rule 69 of the
Rules of Court requires that all
persons interested in the property
shall be joined as defendants. Thus, all
the co-heirs and persons having an
interest in the property are
indispensable parties; as such, an
action for partition will not lie without
the joinder of the said parties.
However, the CA erred in ordering the
dismissal of the complaint because of
Santiago’s failure to implead all the
SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP has no juridical
personality separate and distinct from the
personality of the owner.
The law merely recognizes the existence of a
sole proprietorship as a form of business
organization conducted for profit by a single
individual and requires its proprietor or owner
to secure licenses and permits, register its
business name, and pay taxes to the national
government.
indispensable parties in his complaint.
The Court definitively explained that in
instances of non-joinder of
indispensable parties, the proper
remedy is to implead them and not to
dismiss the case. (Divinagracia v.
Parilla, et al., G.R. No. 196750, March
11, 2015)

The law does not vest a separate legal

personality on the sole proprietorship or
empower it to file or defend an action in court.

The proprietor or proprietress can be

considered as a real party-in-interest and has a
standing to file a case. (Stanley Fine Furniture,
Elena v. Gallano, G.R. No. 190486, November
26, 2014, as penned by J. Leonen)