Navarro vs. Escobido

Facts:

Petitioner Roger V. Navarro is the defendant in two civil actions for replevin and/or sum of money with damages filed on September 12, 1998 by respondent Karen T. Go, doing business under the name Kargo Enterprises (docketed as Civil Case Nos. 98-599 and 98-598). The complaints alleged that Navarro leased two Fuso trucks with mounted cranes from Kargo Enterprises (via lease agreements dated August 8, 1997 and October 1, 1997), defaulted on post‑dated checks, and therefore the vehicles should be replevied or damages recovered. The leases attached to the complaints identified Glenn O. Go as the lessor-seller representing Kargo Enterprises as its manager.

The RTC issued writs of replevin on October 12 and 14, 1998, the sheriff seized the two vehicles, and possession was placed with Karen Go. In his Answers Navarro pleaded, among other defenses, that the complaints failed to state a cause of action because Kargo Enterprises, a sole proprietorship, lacks juridical personality and the lease contracts were in truth contracts between Navarro and Glenn Go (not Karen Go). The two cases were consolidated on December 13, 1999.

On May 8, 2000 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City dismissed the action for failure to state a cause of action. Karen Go filed a motion for reconsideration, and by order dated July 26, 2000 the RTC set aside the dismissal, ruling that Karen Go — as the registered owner of the trade name Kargo Enterprises and a married woman — had sufficient interest to prosecute the suit but should include her husband Glenn Go as co‑plaintiff pursuant to the spouses-as-parties rule. The RTC denied Navarro’s motion for reconsideration on March 7, 2001.

Navarro petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari, arguing grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s setting aside of dismissal and its directive to implead Glenn Go; the CA, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 64701, denied the petition in a Decisi...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Was Karen T. Go the real party‑in‑interest such that the complaints stated a cause of action?
• Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the inclusion of Glenn O. Go as co‑plaintiff, or was dismissal required for non‑joinder or misjoinder of parties?
• Was prior demand a condition precedent to the filing of the replevin actions?
• Were the writs of replevin void because the complaints were deficient, thu...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)