CARANDANG V HEIRS OF DEGUZMAN

Petition for Review on Certiorari

FACTS:

De Guzman and Sps. Carandang are stockholders as well as corporate

officers of Mabuhay Broadcasting System, with equities at 54% and 46%
respectively.
Upon increase of capital stock, sps. Carandan subscribed to an additional
P345,000. Later, Sps. Carandang yet again subscribed to the increase.
De Guzman claims that part of the payment for these subscriptions were paid
by him. Thus, he sent a demand letter to the spouses for the payment of said
total amount. Which the spouses refused to pay.
Carandang souses contend that a pre-incorporation agreement was executed
between the husband and De Guzman whereby the latter promised to pay for
the stock subscriptions of the former with cost, in consideration for the
formers technical expertise, therefore there is not indebtedness on their
part.
De Guzman filed a complaint in the RTC seeking to reover the P336,375
together with damages: RTC ordered the spouses to pay.
Upon appeal of the spouses, CA affirmed RTC and denied MR

ISSUE: Won the RTC should have dismissed the case for failure to state a COA,
considering Milagros De Guzman, allegedly an indepsensible party, was not included
as a party
HELD:
1. Since 3 of the 4 checks used to pay their stock subscriptions were issued in
the name of Milaf de Guzman, the latter should be considered an
indispensable party, failure to join her as party-plaintiff should cause the
dismissal of the action.
2. Petitioners erroneously interchange the terms real party in interest and
indispensable party
3. real party in interest: party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment of the suit or entitled to the avails of the suit.
4. indispensable party: party in interest without whom no final determination
can be had of an action
5. necessary party: 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 settlemtn of the claim subject of the action.
6. Dismissal on this ground entails an examination of whether the parties
presently pleaded are interested in the outcome of the litigation, and NOT
whether all persons interested in such outcome are actually pleaded.
7. Milagros and Quirinos property relations are governed by the regime of CPG:
Credits loaned during the time of the marriage are presumed to be conjugal
property, which includes the 4 checks. Since Quirino, is a real party in

interest, dismissal on the ground of failure to state the cause of action is

therefore unwarranted.
8. Pro-forma parties: those required to be joined as co-parties in suits by or
another party as may be provided by the applicable substantive law or
procedural law: spouses as parties
a. They can either be indispensable, necessary or neither, the
latter occurs if husband files and action to recover a property
which he claims to be part of his exclusive property. The wife
may have no legal interest in such property, but the rules
nevertheless require that she be joined as party.
b. Nonjoinder is not a ground for dismissal. Ana ction to recover a
sum of money, failure to join the spouse in that case was not a
jurisdictional defect. It does not warrant dismissal and may be
cured by amendment.
9. Milagros, is presumed to be a co-owner of the credits, all co-owners
are real parties in interest. Any one of them may bring an action for
the recovery of co-owned properties. Only the one who filed such is
an indispensable party thereto.