Case No.

18 Rule 3

ROGER V. NAVARRO vs. HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 37, Cagayan
de Oro City, and KAREN T. GO, doing business under the name KARGO ENTERPRISES
G.R. No. 153788

November 27, 2009

BRION, J.

*Parties to Civil Actions; Indispensable and Necessary Parties; Real Party in

Interest Sec. 7,8

FACTS:
A contract of Lease with an Option to Purchase was entered into by
herein petitioner Navarro and Glenn Go, the husband of herein private
respondent Karen Go. Karen Go is the registered owner of KARGO Enterprises
which is engaged, among others, in the buy and sell of motor vehicles.
Navarro failed to comply with his obligation to pay the purchase price of
the motor vehicles subject of their contract, whereby his checks were
dishonored because of insufficiency of funds. After oral and written demand,
herein private respondent instituted two complaints before the RTC for
replevin and/or sum of money with damages against Navarro. In these
complaints, Karen Go prayed that the RTC issue writs of replevin for the
seizure of two (2) motor vehicles in Navarros possession. In his Answers,
Navarro alleged as a special affirmative defense that the two complaints
stated no cause of action, since Karen Go was not a party to the Lease
Agreements with Option to Purchase (collectively, the lease agreements)
the actionable documents on which the complaints were based. RTC
dismissed the case but set aside the dismissal on the presumption that
Glenn Gos (husband) leasing business is a conjugal property and thus
ordered Karen Go to file a motion for the inclusion of Glenn Go as co-plaintif
as per Rule 4, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Navarro filed a petition for
certiorari with the CA. According to Navarro, a complaint which failed to state

a cause of action could not be converted into one with a cause of action by
mere amendment or supplemental pleading. CA denied petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Karen Go is a real party in interest.

HELD:
YES. Karen Go is the registered owner of the business name Kargo
Enterprises, as the registered owner of Kargo Enterprises, Karen Go is the
party who will directly benefit from or be injured by a judgment in this case.
Thus, contrary to Navarros contention, Karen Go is the real party-in-interest,
and it is legally incorrect to say that her Complaint does not state a cause of
action because her name did not appear in the Lease Agreement that her
husband signed in behalf of Kargo Enterprises.
Glenn and Karen Go are efectively co-owners of Kargo Enterprises and the
properties registered under this name; hence, both have an equal right to
seek possession of these properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners,
namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned
property, is an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not
indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a complete
relief can be accorded in the suit even without their participation, since the
suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners.
We hold that since Glenn Go is not strictly an indispensable party in the
action to recover possession of the leased vehicles, he only needs to be
impleaded as a pro-forma party to the suit, based on Section 4, Rule 4 of the
Rules, which states:
Section 4.Spouses as parties. Husband and wife shall sue or be sued
jointly, except as provided by law.
Even assuming that Glenn Go is an indispensable party to the action,
misjoinder or non-joinder of indispensable parties in a complaint is not a
ground for dismissal of action as per Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court.