Case Digest (G.R. No. 45131)
Facts:
Ramon Santarromana and Socorro Ledesma v. Conrado Barrios, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, Sofronio Bastareche, Maxima Balderas, Cirilo Ledesma and Custodio Castor, G.R. No. 45131, February 25, 1936, the Supreme Court (Avancena, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, and Laurel, JJ., concurring), Diaz, J., writing for the Court.The underlying action is Civil Case No. 10140 in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, instituted by Teresa Magbanua in her capacity as judicial administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Alejandro Balderas, against the petitioners Ramon Santarromana and Socorro Ledesma. The complaint sought annulment of certain deeds of sale allegedly executed by Alejandro in favor of the petitioners, alleging undue influence, want of consideration, and that some of the lands were either the exclusive property of the deceased or conjugal partnership property.
Four persons — Sofronio Bastareche, Maxima Balderas, Cirilo Ledesma, and Custodio Castor — filed separate petitions to intervene in that suit as third-party claimants. They alleged that they had purchased some of the very lands at issue from Alejandro Balderas prior to the transfers to the petitioners and that they had been in uninterrupted possession under claim of ownership for long periods (25, 20, and 50 years respectively). The respondents therefore sought leave to file complaints in intervention to protect their asserted ownership.
The Judge of First Instance of Iloilo granted the motions and permitted the four to intervene as third-party claimants by order dated March 17, 1936. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari in this Court, contending that the respondent judge acted without...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge act without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in permitting the four persons to intervene as third-party claimants?
- Were the four intervenors properly entitled to intervene as third-party claimants under the court’s authority to avoid multiplicity of suits (i.e., did their interest justify intervention under ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)