[ G .R. No. L-2715. May 30, 1951 ] 89 Phil. 188
[ G .R. No. L-2715. May 30, 1951 ]
TERESA ALBERTO, IGNACIO RAMOS, MARIANO RAMOS, GREGORIO RAMOS, CECILIO RAMOS, EUSTAQUIO RAMOS AND FAUSTA RAMOS, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES VS. CASIMIRO MANANGHALA, ISABEL FELICIANO, GREGORIO FEUCIANO, ROMANA FELICIANO, TECLA FELICIANO, CATALINO FELICIANO, MAMERTA DANCEL AND LUCIO DANCEL, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac declaring the plaintiffs owners of lot No. 1238 and ordering Casimiro Mananghala to return to them the possession of said lot provided that the plaintiffs pay him the value of the building he had constructed thereon or he pay the plaintiffs the price of the land, at the choice of the latter. On May 10, 1928, Arcadio Ramos executed a private document in favor of Vicente Feliclano in which he sold lot No. 1238 with option to repurchase within a period of two years. On the date of the sale the possession of the land was given to Vicente Feliciano Arcadio Ramos died on March 9, 1929, and one month thereafter his widow Teresa Alberto took from Vicente Feliciano an additional amount of P60 to be included in the purchase price of the land. On June 4, 1930, Vicente Feliciano died and the lot was adjudicated pro indiviso to his heirs Catalino, Gregorio, Romana and Teofila, all surnamed Feliciano, and Mamerta Dancel and Lucio Dancel who possessed the land up to 1937, when they sold it to Casi-miro Mananghala by virtue of a document ratified on June 15, 1943. Mananghala demanded from the plaintiffs the execution of a direct sale in his favor of the lot, which still continues registered in the name of Arcadio Ramos, but they refused to do so and instead filed the present action. The action was originally filed against Casimiro Mananghala and his wife. After the defendants had filed their answer in which they set up as a special defense that they acquired the land from the heirs of Vicente Feliciano, plaintiffs amended the complaint by including the latter as parties-defendants. Of these defendants, however, only Gregorio Feliciano, Romana Feliciano and Isabel Feliciano were served with summons, leaving out Teofila Feliciano, Catalino Feliciano, Mamerta Dancel and Lucio Dancel. This matter was brought to the attention of the Court, but the latter proceeded with the trial and rendered judgment as pointed out in the early part of this decision. The defendants appealed and assigned as one of the errors that “the lower court erred in proceeding with the trial of this case, it appearing from the records that some of the defendants who are either indispensable or necessary parties had not been served with the summons.” The purpose of this action is to recover the ownership and possession of lot No. 1238 which was sold by Arcadio Ramos to Vicente Feliciano with option to repurchase within a period of two years. After the death of Vicente Feliciano, his heirs instituted the necessary intestate proceedings and adjudicated to themselves pro indiviso the credit guaranteed by the land in question. Thereafter, these heirs sold the property also pro indiviso to Casimiro Mananghala from whom the plaintiffs now seek to recover the ownership and possession thereof. One of the issues raised by the parties is whether the transaction carried out by and between Arcadio Ramos and Vicente Feliciano is a sale with pacto de retro or simply an equitable mortgage. If it be held that it is the former, then the right of the heirs of Vicente Feliciano to sell the land to Casimiro Mananghala is safeguarded. If it be held that it is an equitable mortgage, then their right would be defeated and they would be held responsible for warranty and eviction under the law to Casimiro Mananghala. This being so, it would seem clear that the presence of all the heirs of Vicente Feliciano in this case is indispensable in order that they may protect their interest. They are entitled to be heard. They may have a valid defense which may have the effect of defeating the claim of the plaintiffs. This, however, was not donefor some of the heirs of Vicente Feliciano, namely Teofila, Feliciano, Catalino Feliciano, Mamerta Dancel and Lucio Dancel were not served with summons and consequently have not entered their appearance. This is in violation of section 7, rule 3, of the Rules of Court. In an action for rescission of sale because of nonpayment of price, the vendee is an indispensable party. (Ocejo, Perez & Co. vs. International Banking Corporation, 37 Phil., 631.) In an action for recovery of property against a person who purchased it from another who in turn acquired it from others by the same means or by donation or otherwise, the predecessors of defendants are indispensable parties if the transfers, if not voided, may bind plaintiff. (Garcia vs. Reyes, 17 Phil, 127.) In the latter case, this Court held:
“In order to bring this suit duly to a close, it is imperative to determine the only question raised in connection with the pending appeal, to wit, whether all the persons who intervened in the matter of the transfers and donation herein referred to, are or are not necessary parties to this suit, since it is asked in the complaint that the said transfers and donation be declared null and void—an indispensable declaration for the purpose, in a proper case, of concluding the plaintiff to be the sole owner of the house in dispute. If such a declaration of annulment can directly affect the persons who made and who were concerned in the said transfers, nothing could be more proper and just than to hear them in the litigation, as parties interested in maintaining the validity of those transactions, and therefore, whatever be the nature of the judgment rendered, Francisco Reyes, Dolores Carvajal, Alfredo Chicote, Vicente Miranda, and Rafael Sierra, besides the said minors, must be included in the case as defendants.” (Garcia vs. Reyes, 17 Phil., 130-131.)
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is set aside. Let this case be remanded to the court of origin in order that all the defendants who were made parties in the amea Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, and Jugo, JJ., concur.