SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 224204, August 30, 2017
PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RAMON AND ANNABELLE SABADO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 filed by petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank (petitioner) assailing the Decision2 dated October 29, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated April 20, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 135922, which reversed and set-aside the Decision4 dated November 28, 2013 and the Order5 dated April 28, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 98 (RTC) in SCA Case No. 13-1290 and ordered that Haus Talk Project Managers, Inc. (HTPMI) be impleaded as an indispensable party to the unlawful detainer case against respondents spouses Ramon and Annabelle Sabado (respondents).
SEC. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. - Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.Case law defines an indispensable party as "one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties' that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable."30 "Thus, the absence of an indispensable 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."31 In Regner v. Logarta,32 the Court laid down the parameters in determining whether or not one is an indispensable party, viz.:
An indispensable party is a party who has x x x an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest, a party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has also been considered that an indispensable party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Further, an indispensable party is one who must be included in an action before it may properly go forward.Guided by the foregoing parameters and as will be explained hereunder, the CA erred in holding that HTPMI is an indispensable party to the ejectment suit filed by petitioner against respondents.
A person is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an indispensable party if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the subject matter of the action. It is not a sufficient reason to declare a person to be an indispensable party that his presence will avoid multiple litigation.33 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
2. RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACTS TO SELL. By this assignment, the ASSIGNEE hereby acquires all rights of the ASSIGNOR under the Contracts to Sell and under the law, including the right to endorse any and all terms and conditions of the Contracts to Sell and the right to collect the amounts due thereunder from the purchaser of the Property. The ASSIGNOR for this purpose hereby names, constitutes and appoints the ASSIGNEE [as its] attorney-in-fact to execute any act and deed necessary in the exercise of all these rights. Notwithstanding the assignment of the Contracts to Sell and the Receivables thereunder to the ASSIGNEE, the legal title to the Property and obligations of the ASSIGNOR under the Contracts to Sell, including the obligation to complete the development of the property and the warranties of a builder under the law, shall remain the ASSIGNOR'S. x x x.34 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Verily, HTPMI's assignment of rights to petitioner must be deemed to include the rights to collect payments from respondents, and in the event of the latter's default, to cancel or rescind the Contract to Sell, and resultantly, recover actual possession over the subject property, as follows:
In view of the foregoing, the Court agrees with the findings of the courts a quo that petitioner had the right to institute the instant suit against respondents.TERMS AND CONDITIONS
b) the [respondents] herein agree to perform and undertake the [HTPMI] Payment Plan with the following terms:
i) Downpayment x x x of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS ONLY (P174,400.00) to be paid within twelve (12) months after payments [sic] of the reservation. Failure to pay two (2) consecutive monthly installments will mean cancellation of this contract and forfeiture of all payments. Discount terms shall be based on [HTPMI] Agreed Payment Plan.
x x x x
iii) Failure to pay any amount within the stimulated [sic] period of time shall mean forfeiture of the down payment and any other payments made and the Contract to Sell shall be cancelled and rescinded in accordance with law.35 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2475 dated August 29, 2017.
1Rollo, pp. 9-24.
2 Id. at 28-36. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Socorro B. Inting, concurring.
3 Id. at 38-41.
4 Id. at 101-105. Penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Consejo Gengos-Ignalaga.
5 Id. at 106.
6 Id. at 58-61.
7 See id. at 29 and 58.
8 Id. at 45A-48.
9 See id. at29,45A-47, and 80-81.
10 Id. at 62.
11 Id. at 49-55.
12 See id. at 9-30 and 81-82.
13 See Answer dated September 27, 2009; id. at 66-68.
14 See id. at 30 and 67.
15 Id. at 80-86. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Alberto L. Vizcocho.
16 Id. at 85-86.
17 See id. at 83-85.
18 See Notice of Appeal dated May 16, 2013; id. at 87-88.
19 Id. at 101-105.
20 Id. at 105.
21 See id. at 103-104.
22 See motion for reconsideration dated January 16, 2014; id. at 107-110.
23 Id. at 106.
24 See petition dated July 7, 2014; id. at 111-121.
25 Id. at 28-36.
26 See id. at 36.
27 See id. at 31-35.
28 See motion for reconsideration dated November 20, 2015; id. at 143-150.
29 Id. at 38-41.
30Land Bank of the Philippines v. Cacayuran, 759 Phil. 145, 152 (2015), citing Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 486 Phil. 366, 379-380 (2004).
31 Id., citing Domingo v. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235, 265 (2004).
32 362 Phil. 862 (2007).
33 Id. at 875-876, citing Arcelona v. CA, 345 Phil. 250, 269-270 (1997).
34Rollo, p. 45A.
35 Id. at 58.
36 "Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties." (Piedad v. Spouses Gurieza, G.R. No. 207525, June 18, 2014, 736 Phil. 709, 715 [2014]; emphases and underscoring supplied)