Francis was the only son of Julia. Julia was the daughter and heir of Enteng who inherited from his mother Ana (Julia’s grandma) together with his brothers Diego and Pablo (Julia’s uncles) eleven parcels of land. Based on the project of partition, Enteng was entitled to undivided share in two parcels and 1/3 undivided portion in nine other parcels of land. The said partition was not carried out because Pablo who was the administrator of Ana’s estate refused to do so. When Enteng died in 1920 Julia was only four years old so it was Julia’s mother and Francis’ grandmother Mila who pursued the demand for such partition. Later Julia herself demanded the partition but Pablo still refused claiming that he needed continuous possession of the properties for payment of their realty taxes out of their fruits or produce. When Julia died in 1944, she was survived by her husband Kiko and mother Mila, Francis’ father and grandmother respectively. But it was Francis himself who pressed for the partition and demanded for his mother’s share. His granduncle Pablo, however, still refused. In fact Pablo even sold one of the parcels of land to the City Government for P7,492 in 1968. Finally after so many demands on so many occasions, Francis decided to file a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) against his granduncle Pablo for recovery of possession of 1/2 undivided share in the two parcels of land and 1/3 share in eight other parcels of land as well as 1/3 of the P7,492 proceeds of sale of one parcel sold by Pablo. At the time Francis filed the case, his father Kiko as well as the wife and children of his granduncle Diego were still alive. Would Francis’ action prosper?
No. Francis’ action for partition should be dismissed for failure to implead in his complaint, all the indispensable parties. 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 said parties. It is precisely when indispensable parties are not before the court that the action should be dismissed. Thus the plaintiff (Francis) is mandated to implead all the indispensable parties, considering that the absence of one such party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. One who is not party to a case is not bound by any decision of the court, otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to due process. Without the presence of all other heirs and persons interested in the property as plaintiffs, the trial court could not validly render judgment and grant relief in favor of Francis. In the present case, Francis failed to implead the following indispensable parties: his father Kiko who, as surviving spouse of Julia is entitled to a portion in usufruct equal to that of the legitime of each legitimate child; the heirs of Diego, namely, his surviving wife and their children; and the city government which purchased one of the properties from Pablo. The failure of Francis to implead the foregoing parties constituted a legal obstacle to the court’s exercise of judicial power over the said case, and rendered any orders or judgments that may be issued therein, a nullity (Sepulveda, Sr. etc. vs. Pelaez, G.R. 152195, January 31, 2005).