G.R. No. 155236 - Orbeta vs. Sendiong

On March 24, 1925, Simeona Montenegro sold to spouses Maximo Orbeta and Basilisa Teves-Orbeta a 4,622-sqm portion of Lot 606 in Dumaguete, excluding an 884-sqm house site retained by Montenegro’s grandmother.
On January 25, 1934, spouses Orbeta sold the 4,622 sqm to spouses Juan Sendiong and Exequila Castellanes.
On December 29, 1956, Sendiong and Castellanes donated the property to their son Luis Sendiong, who in turn sold half the undivided estate to spouses “Pretzylou” (a/k/a Benedicto Pajulas) and Genisa Sendiong on June 9, 1973.

In May 1972, heirs of Simeona Montenegro filed CFI Civil Case No. 5442 against Luis Sendiong for recovery of the excluded 884 sqm; the records were destroyed by fire and the case lapsed.
On May 18, 1992, heirs of Simeona and heirs of spouses Orbeta (petitioners) filed before RTC Branch 44 Dumaguete Civil Case No. 10173 against spouses Pajulas/Sendiong for recovery of possession, quieting of title and damages, claiming (a) co-ownership of 884 sqm and 2,311 sqm conjugal share; (b) that Maximo’s 1934 sale without Basilisa’s consent conveyed only his half share.

Defendants moved (1993–1997) to dismiss or include Paul and Lourdes Sendiong (heirs of Luis) as indispensable parties; all motions denied.
On April 16, 1998, RTC rendered judgment: recognized Montenegro heirs’ 884 sqm, annulled 1934 sale as to Basilisa’s share, declared petitioners absolute co-owners of remainder, and ordered restoration.
Spouses Pajulas/Sendiong attempted appeal; RTC denied Notice of Appeal for improper non-forum-shopping certificate; CA Fourth Division denied certiorari (June 30, 2000; recon denied Jan. 8, 2001). Judgment in Civil Case No. 10173 became final.

On August 28, 2000, Paul B. Sendiong, represented by Mae A. Sendiong as attorney-in-fact, filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of the RTC decision in Civil Case No. 10173, alleging lack of due process and non-impleadment of indispensable parties.
On May 20, 2002, the CA granted the petition: held Paul and Lourdes Sendiong indispensable, absence vitiated jurisdiction, and all subsequent proceedings void.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition for review, raising procedural and substantive objections to the CA decision.

Were Paul and Lourdes Sendiong indispensable parties to Civil Case No. 10173?
Does the failure to implead them render the RTC decision void for lack of jurisdiction?

Is the CA petition for annulment barred by estoppel, laches, res judicata, or forum-shopping?
Was the verification and certification of non-forum shopping validly signed by Mae A. Sendiong under a general power of attorney?
Does failure to state the RTC docket number in the petition caption warrant dismissal under A.C. No. 28-91?