Title
Supreme Court
Clidoro vs. Jalmanzar
Case
G.R. No. 176598
Decision Date
Jul 9, 2014
Heirs sought revival of a 1995 partition judgment; SC upheld CA, ruling plaintiffs were real parties-in-interest, amendments proper, and misjoinder not grounds for dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176598)

Background of the Case

The case originated from Civil Case No. T-2275, wherein Rizalina Clidoro and others filed a complaint for revival of judgment against Onofre Clidoro and others. The complaint sought to revive a decision from the Court of Appeals dated November 13, 1995, which affirmed an earlier ruling on partition related to the estate of Mateo Clidoro. This earlier decision included specific portions designated to respective heirs, and the plaintiffs requested the issuance of a writ of execution for the same.

Motion to Dismiss and Proceedings Below

On September 3, 2003, the defendants, excluding one, moved to dismiss the complaint citing a lack of real parties-in-interest, improper substitution of parties, failure to meet legal requirements for revival under Rule 69, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and characterizing the prior decision as interlocutory. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, asserting that many parties referenced had died, lacking natural or material existence, and thereby failing to represent real parties in interest.

Denial of Motion for Reconsideration

The plaintiffs sought reconsideration, proposing an amended complaint to include additional heirs. This was also denied, leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court eventually reversed the RTC's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The petitioners then brought the current petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised in the Petition

The primary issues presented were: (1) failure to properly substitute parties; (2) error in considering both petitioners and respondents as real parties-in-interest; (3) error in allowing amendments to the pleadings; and (4) misclassification of parties leading to mere misjoinder.

Supreme Court's Ruling on the Petition

The Supreme Court underscored that lack of cause of action cannot be a basis for dismissing a complaint through motions under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court; such a determination must be resolved during trial. The distinction between a lack of cause of action and failure to state a cause of action was made clear, emphasizing that the determination at this stage should focus only on the sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint.

Legal Principles on Revival of Judgment

The action for revival of judgment is distinct from the original action and serves solely to seek enforcement of a previously rendered judgment that has become dormant. The court highlighted that differences in party names between cases do not automatically negate these parties' status as real parties-in-interest, as they must stand to benefit or be harmed by the judgm

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.