Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > May 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 192493 : May 30, 2011] MARIANO Y. RODRIGUEZ, JR. AND CARMENCITA Y. RODRIGUEZ V. SPOUSES FELIPE CARI AND CARMEN CARI :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 30 May 2011 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 192493 (Mariano Y. Rodriguez, Jr. and Carmencita Y. Rodriguez v. Spouses Felipe Cari and Carmen Cari).-

Petitioners Mariano Rodriguez, Jr. and Carmencita Rodriguez (the Rodriguezes) co-owned with their parents a registered land in Quezon City.^[1] They discovered later that their nephew Mario Rodriguez (Mario) made it appear that they, together with their parents; sold the land to him. Then on October 26, 1993 Mario sold the land to the respondent spouses Felipe and Carmen Cari (the Caris) when, at that time, Mario was already in a comatose state as a result of a vehicular accident that took place on October 23, 1993. Subsequently, the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City issued a new title^[2] to the Caris.

  The Rodriguezes filed an action against the Caris before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for the annulment of title and reconveyance.

On April 20, 2007 the RTC rendered a decision, dismissing the complaint. The Rodriguezes appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) but on November 24, 2009 the CA affirmed the RTC Decision.

The Rodriguezes insist before this Court that the CA erred in affirming the RTC�s dismissal of their action partly on the ground of nonjoinder of Mario in their complaint.^[3]  The Court agrees with the Rodriguezes on this. True, an action should be dismissed when indispensable parties are not impleaded or are not brought before the court since joinder of indispensable parties is compulsory. But such non-joinder of indispensable parties is not of itself the ground for the dismissal of an action.^[4] Rather, it is when the plaintiff does not heed the court's order to implead an indispensable party that it may dismiss the complaint on the ground of the plaintiffs failure to comply with such order.^[5]

But, as regards the substantial aspect of this case, the Court agrees with the CA that the Caris were buyers in good faith. True the land was previously registered in the name of the Rodriguezes and their parents but, after the Quezon City Hall fire that gutted the office of the Register of Deeds, the title was reconstituted and a new one was issued in Mario's name by virtue of a deed of sale, apparently executed by the owners in his favor. The Rodriguezes of course contend that the deed of sale was clearly a forgery since their father who supposedly signed it had long been dead.

The evidence fails to show, however, that the Caris had something to do with such falsified transfer. No irregularity appeared on the face of the title as to put the Caris on notice that Mario's title was flawed. The Caris dealt with Mario, the person in whose name the registered title appeared.

Finally, with respect to the date of the sale occurring after October 23, 1993 when Mario had an accident, the CA found that the property had already been transferred to the spouses Cari even before that date. Felipe Cari and the witness who attested to its signing pointed out that Mario placed his signature on the deed of sale in their presence on October 20, 1993 but the notary public notarized the same only on October 26, 1993. As the trial court ruled, it would be unfair to visit this hidden notarial defect and annul the sale on account of the notary public's failure to fulfill his duty as the law required.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 89425 dated November 24, 2009.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 163478.

^[2] TCT 97140. 

^[3] Rollo, p. 247. 

^[4] Pamplona Plantation Co., Inc. v. Tinghil, 491 Phil. 15, 29 (2005). 

^[5] W1LLARD B. RIANO, CIVIL PROCEDURE (A RESTATEMENT FOR THE BAR) (2nd ed. 2009), p. 223, citing Section 11, Rule 3 and Section 3, Rule 17 of the RULES OF COURT, and Plasabas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 686, 693.