TUMAGAN, HALIL, and PADILLA v.

KAIRUZ
G.R. No. 198124 | September 12, 2018

FACTS:

Kairuz filed an ejectment case before the MCTC alleging that petitioners took her property
by padlocking it and posting armed men to exclude her from the property. Petitioners averred that
Kairuz could not bring the present action for forcible entry because she was never the sole owner
or possessor of the property. They alleged that she is the spouse of the late Laurence Kairuz,
who co-owned the property with his sisters. Petitioner claimed that Laurence entered into a MOA
with Balibago Waterworks System Incorporated and its affiliate company, PASUDECO, to
establish a new corporation, Bali Irisan Resources, Inc. (BIRI) since the property is a good source
of potable water. Eventually, as stipulated in the MOA, the property was sold to BIRI.

Tumagan is the branch manager of BIRI, while the two other petitioners are geodetic
engineers hired by BIRI to survey the property. Petitioners claimed that BIRI, as a corporation
and owner of the property, merely exercised its legal right to prevent unauthorized persons form
entering its property.

The MCTC dismissed the case due to failure of Kairuz to implead BIRI, an indispensable
party. On appeal, the RTC upheld the MCTC’s decision. It ruled that since petitioners were able
to establish that they acted as mere employees or agents of BIRI, the issue of possession cannot
be resolved without the court first acquiring jurisdiction over BIRI. The CA reversed the decision
of the MCTC and RTC, ruling that it should have limited the issue to who had prior physical
possession of the disputed land, and that failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground
for the dismissal of an action.

ISSUE:
Whether BIRI is an indispensable party

RULING:

Yes. An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can
be had of an action and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The presence of an
indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction.

The MCTC and the RTC are correct in ruling that BIRI is an indispensable party, being the
registered owner of the property and at whose behest the petitioner-employees acted. Thus,
without the participation of BIRI, there could be no full determination of the issues in this case
considering that it was sufficiently established that petitioners did not take possession of the
property for their own use but for that of BIRI’s.

Further, while the CA is correct that failure to implead an indispensable party is not a
ground for the dismissal of an action, it failed to take into account that it remains essential that
any indispensable party be impleaded in the proceedings before the court renders judgment.