Agcaoili v.

Mata (2020) Luigi Andrada

Law 125 – Civil Procedure A2025

Case Name Agcaoili v. Mata (2020)

Topic Parties > Indispensable Parties

Case No. | Date G.R. No. 224414 | February 26, 2020

Petitioner/s George Agcaoili

Respondent/s Elmer Mata

Ponente Lazaro-Javier, J.

Case Summary

A parcel of land owned by the parents of Respondent was fraudulently partitioned by

Petitioner where Respondent filed an action to nullify the subdivision plan and tax
declarations. The parcel of land legally belongs to Respondent and his brother Pedro Jr., as
co-heirs after their parents had passed away. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Respondent
and declared the documents as void. However, Petitioner assails that the RTC made a
procedural mistake when it decided on the partition without Pedro Jr. or his heirs as a party
to the case, with the latter. being an indispensable party as co-heir/co-owner

The SC ruled that Heirs of Pedro Mata Jr. are indispensable parties in the complaint for
annulment, partition, and damages that must be impleaded, accdg to Sec. 1, Rule 69, RoC.

It ruled that in an action for partition, 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. As a remedy, the Court held that the dismissal of the case is not
proper. Instead, following its ruling in Heirs of Faustino and Mesina v. Heirs of Fian, Sr, the
proper remedy is to remand the case to the RTC and to order that the indispensable parties
to be impleaded to the case and allow them to present evidence

Decision

Case is remanded to the RTC for the co-heir to be impleaded.

Doctrine

● Sec. 1, Rule 69, RoC: Complaint in action for partition of real estate. — A person
having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided
in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an
adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as
defendants all other persons interested in the property.
● Where there are indispensable parties in an action of partition, the Court must remand
the case to the RTC and order the lower court to implead the parties to the case to allow
them to present their evidence

Relevant Facts

Version 3.0 Page 1 of 3

 Agcaoili v. Mata (2020) Luigi Andrada
Law 125 – Civil Procedure A2025

● The grandfather of Respondent Mata owned a parcel of land where it was sold to the
parents of Respondent through a deed of absolute sale.
o Respondent had a sibling named Pedro Jr.
o When their father died, their mother Josefina re-married Emilio Agcaoili, but did
not bear any children.
● When their mother was still alive, the lot was declared in their names without
Respondent’s knowledge and the lot was used as a collateral for the purchase of a rifle
● Almost 50 years later, petitioner and other individuals fraudulently subdivided the lot
without the permission and knowledge of respondent. There was also a lack of signature
of Josefina and Emilio.
o Tax declarations were also fraudulently secured for petitioner and others
● Hence, respondent prayed that the subdivision plan and all the tax declarations in the
name of Petitioner, et. al were to be declared void
● Meanwhile, Petitioner avers that he had an agreement with Respondent and the latter’s
brother to terminate their co-ownership
o Petitioner later testified that he was the Pedro Jr., but was adopted by Josefina and
Emilio1
● RTC ruled in favor of respondent and declared the Subdivision Plan, Tax Declarations, and
the Status of Real Estate Property as void.
● CA affirmed the RTC ruling
● On appeal, Petitioner assails the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision despite the RTC’s
failure to observe the procedural rule governing actions for partition
o That Pedro Jr. (or his heirs) is an indispensable party that should have been
impleaded from the beginning since Pedro Jr. is a co-heir

Issue/s, Held and Ratio

1. W/N RTC erred when it ordered for the partition even if not all Yes
the indispensable parties were impleaded in the case:

Heirs of Pedro Mata Jr. are indispensable parties in the complaint for
annulment, partition, and damages that must be impleaded, accdg to Sec. 1,
Rule 69, RoC2

1 Petitioner is the son of Respondent’s brother, and was legally adopted by Respondent’s mother (??) From apo to anak
real quick
2 See doctrine

Version 3.0 Page 2 of 3

 Agcaoili v. Mata (2020) Luigi Andrada
Law 125 – Civil Procedure A2025

● An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the
litigation. In his or her absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties
before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.
● In an action for partition, 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
● In non-joinder of indispensable parties, the case should not be dismissed, but the non-
party claimed to be indispensable should be impleaded by remanding the case to the RTC
o Heirs of Juan M. Dinglasan v. Ayala Corp: As to whether or not the subject
Complaints should be dismissed, the settled rule is that the non-joinder of
indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.
The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and/or at such times as are just
o Heirs of Faustino and Mesina v. Heirs of Domingo Fian: this Court
remanded the case to the RTC, ordered the representative of the heirs of the
Spouses Mesina to implead all the heirs of Fian, Sr., as defendants, and directed
the trial court to undertake appropriate steps and proceedings to expedite
adjudication of the case.
● The correct course of action is to remand to the RTC for the inclusion of the indispensable
parties who were not impleaded and for the disposition of the case on the merits after these
parties are given opportunity to present their own evidence
● Side Issue: The Court included Petitioner to the partition since no one challenged his claim
that he was legally adopted by Josefina, which makes him a compulsory heir

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated June 10, 2014 and
Resolution dated April 25, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95215, as well as
the Decision dated May 14, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte,
in Civil Case No. 838- 19, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Let the case be REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte,
for further proceedings. The court is DIRECTED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO IMPLEAD,
as party-defendants, the Heirs of Pedro Mata, Jr. and all other persons interested in the
property, being indispensable parties and, thereafter, allow these parties to present their
evidence and PROCEED with the resolution of the case on the meritsWITH DISPATCH.
The resolution on the merits should cover the deterrnination of the claimed heirship of
petitioner George Agcaoili.

Version 3.0 Page 3 of 3