Dear PAO,
I am a buyer in a contract to sell involving land inherited by the heirs of Y. The latter are now cancelling our agreement on unjustified grounds. I told them that I will file a case to compel them to comply with their obligations. However, they recently appointed an administrator over the estate of Y and claimed that I should include the administrator in the case. Is it really necessary to implead the administrator in the intended action? Please guide me.
Brenhart
Dear Brenhart,
An indispensable party is defined under Section 7, Rule 3, A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC 2019 or the Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as:
“Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.”.
Correlative thereto, Section 8 of the same rule also refers to a necessary party and defines it as:
“A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.”
The difference between the two afore-stated parties were explained in Heirs of Spouses Manzano vs. Kinsonic Philippines, Inc. (G.R. No. 214087. February 27, 2023), where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, stated that:
An indispensable party must be joined under any and all conditions while a necessary party should be joined whenever possible (Borlasa vs. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345). Stated otherwise, an indispensable party must be joined because the court cannot proceed without him. Hence, his presence is mandatory. The presence of a necessary party is not mandatory because his interest is separable from that of the indispensable party. He has to be joined whenever possible to afford complete relief to those who are already parties and to avoid multiple litigation. A necessary party is not indispensable but he ought to be joined if complete relief is to be had among those who are already parties (Sec. 8, Rule 3, Rules of Court). A final decree can be had in a case even without a necessary party because his interests are separable from the interest litigated in the case (Chua vs. Torres, 468 SCRA 358; Seno vs. Mangubat, 156 SCRA 113). The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party (Sec. 9, Rule 3, Rules of Court; Agro Conglomerates, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 450; Hemedez vs. Court [sic], 316 SCRA 347).38 (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, the administrator of the estate of Y is considered as a necessary party in the case for specific performance which you intend to file against the heirs of Y, but he/she is not an indispensable party because his/her interest in the property is separate from the interest of the heirs of Y in the contract to sell. Thus, the inclusion of the administrator, although desirable for full settlement of the controversy, is not mandatory. After all, the administrator may bring any appropriate action to recover property belonging to the estate of Y, should the need arise.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
