Title
Source: Supreme Court
Galindo vs. Heirs of Roxas
Case
G.R. No. 147969
Decision Date
Jan 17, 2005
Heirs of Marciano Roxas sued Galindo heirs over disputed land sale; SC dismissed case due to lack of indispensable parties and plaintiffs' legal capacity.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5279)

Factual Background

Marciano A. Roxas died intestate in 1950, leaving behind a widow and children. In 1955, his heirs filed a specific performance action against the heirs of Gregorio Galindo, seeking to compel the execution of a deed of sale concerning Lot 1048. The case revealed that Lot 1048 was originally subject to a sale agreement between the government and Gregorio Galindo, later transferred to Marciano A. Roxas, but not officially registered due to Urbano Galindo's minority at the time of the transaction.

Court Decisions and Proceedings

On August 12, 1965, the trial court ruled in favor of Marciano Roxas' heirs, ordering the defendants to execute a deed of sale for Lot 1048. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in 1973, but enforcement of the ruling lagged due to bureaucratic inaction. The Lot was subsequently transferred to Juanita Galindo Rivera after the extrajudicial settlement executed by Urbano Galindo's heirs in 1997.

Legal Actions Post-Settlement

In April 1999, the Roxas heirs filed a complaint against Juanita Galindo Rivera in the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, seeking annulment of the extrajudicial settlement and cancellation of the title TCT No. 335593(M). They claimed this settlement contradicted the prior ruling affirming their ownership of Lot 1048.

Motion to Dismiss and Court's Rulings

Juanita Galindo Rivera filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the Roxas heirs lacked legal capacity to sue and that their cause of action had prescribed. The trial court denied this motion, finding the plaintiffs had the capacity to sue as they were legitimate heirs of Marciano Roxas. The trial court classified the complaint under "quieting of title" principles rather than mere enforcement of the earlier decision.

Appellate Review and Findings

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari against the trial court's orders, upholding that the trial court's actions were not marked by grave abuse of discretion. However, the case was escalated to higher courts for further resolution.

Legal Capacity and Indispensable Parties

The Supreme Court evaluated whether all petitioners were proper parties in the case. It found that since some petitioners were not part of the earlier trial, they could not challenge the orders issued. Nevertheless, it recognized them as indispensable parties necessary for a valid court ruling. Their absence rendered the trial court's decisions null regarding their interests in the property.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Points

The Court underscored the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.