REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT VI BRANCH 68

DUMANGAS ILOILO
TERESA B. DERLA and Civil Case No. 23-2173
JOEL V. DERLA
Plaintiffs,
- versus - For: WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
with TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
SPOUSES FLORENCE AND EASEMENT OF WAY and DAMAGES
and ARCHIE DUPLITO
Defendants.
X-----------------------X
Motion To Implead Indispensable Parties
with Prayer for Suspension of the Writ of Execution
DEFENDANTS through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court
respectfully state, THAT:
1. This instant case was filed by Plaintiffs on 03 December 2023 for easement
of way over a parcel of land Lot 5277 for Lot 5276.
2. Plaintiffs submitted Real Property Taxes issued to Amando Deximo and
Joel Derla for payment of the undivided parcel of land listed as Lot 5276
with declared owner listed as CONRADO DELLO (Plaintiffs’ Exhibits A, and
A-1 to A-4);
3. Plaintiffs also submitted as Exhibit “B” Sketch Plan of the Survey for a
Catrina Maximo Bolbes done by Geodetic Engineer Rogelio Santotome on
the undivided Lot No. 5276 with an area of Four Hundred Twenty-Three
(423) square meters more or less;
4. Lot No. 5277 is covered OCT No. 47713 which also encompasses Lots Nos.
5272, 5274 and 5278 which are all registered in the names of Querino
Desarno and Consuelo Defino. (Photocopies of Land Registration
Authority Certificate and of Owner’s Copy of OCT No. 47713 were
attached as Annexes “1” and 2” of Defendants’ Opposition submitted on
14 May 2024;
5. Defendants are among the many co-owners as heirs of the registered
owners, Querino Desarno and Consuelo Defino. The other heirs of the
registered owners were not given notice of the existence of this instant
case.
6. The only surviving child and one of the compulsory heirs of the registered
owners Querino Desarno and Consuelo Defino, FE DESARNO Vda de
PANIZALES, filed her Motion to Intervene on 07 June 2024. (Photocopy of
her Birth Certificate was attached as Annex “1” of her
Answer-in-Intervention.);
7. Upon perusal thereof her birth certificate, it can be shown that she has six
(6) other siblings, including Sabiniano II, the grandfather of FLORENCE G.
1 | of 4 pages
aportadera_law_offices-iloilo/CC23-2173B68/MtoImplead
 DUPLITO;
8. Herein, Registered owners, Querino Desarno and Consuelo Defino, are
only represented by Spouses FLORENCE G. and ARCHIE DUPLITO, and FE
DESARNO Vda de PANIZALES who voluntarily appeared to this Honorable
Court by filing their Answer with Counter-Claim and Motion to Intervene
respectively;
9. However, the heirs of the other children of the registered owners Querino
Desarno and Consuelo Defino, not having been impleaded have not
appeared before the Court;
10. The registered owner of the whole Lot 5276, CONRADO DELLO, and
one of the payors of the real estate taxes of the whole Lot 5276, Amando
Deximo, are likewise not impleaded;
11. Rule 3 Section 7 on the Parties to Civil Actions provides
that: Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. - Parties in interest
without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be
joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
12. In Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 486 Phil. 366, 379-380
(2004), citing Bank of the Philippine Islands v. CA, 450 Phil. 532, 541 (2003),
the Supreme Court held that: “An indispensable party is one whose
interest will be affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and without
whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party’s interest in
the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably
intertwined with the other parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the
proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a
resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective,
complete, or equitable.”;
13. In Domingo v. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235, 265 (2004), it ruled, “Thus, the
absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the
court null and void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent
parties but even as to those present.” It reiterated its pronouncements in
Belo and Trust Company v. Alejo, 364 SCRA 812 (2001), where it ruled,
“The absence of the respondent’s siblings, as parties, rendered all
proceedings subsequent to the filing thereof, including the judgment of
the court, ineffective for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent
parties but even as to those present.”;
14. In REYNALDO BALOLOY and ADELINA BALOLOY-HIJE vs.
ALFREDO HULAR G.R. No. 157767 September 9, 2004, the Supreme Court
declared: “There is no proof that the other co-owners had waived their
rights over the subject property or conveyed the same to the respondent
or such co-owners were aware of the case in the trial court. The trial court
rendered judgment declaring the respondent as the sole owner of the
property and entitled to its possession, to the prejudice of the latter’s
siblings. Patently then, the decision of the trial court is erroneous.”;
15. Its pronouncement in Pamplona Plantation Company, Inc. v. Tinghil G.R.
No. 159121, February 3, 2005, 450 SCRA 421 reiterated in Heirs of Mesina
v. Heirs of Fian, Sr. G.R. No. 201816, April 8, 2013, 695 SCRA 345 provides
the proper remedy in instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties. It
2 | of 4 pages
aportadera_law_offices-iloilo/CC23-2173B68/MtoImplead
 explains: “The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the
dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such
times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the
initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an
indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss
the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order. The
remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.”
16. The rationale for treating all the co-owners of a property as
indispensable parties in a suit involving the co-owned property is
explained in Arcelona v. Court of Appeals 345 Phil. 250, 268-269 (1997),
cited in Casals v. Tayud Golf and Country Club, Inc., G.R. No. 183105, July
22, 2009.: “As held by the Supreme Court, were the courts to permit an
action in ejectment to be maintained by a person having merely an
undivided interest in any given tract of land, a judgment in favor of the
defendants would not be conclusive as against the other co-owners not
parties to the suit, and thus the defendant in possession of the property
might be harassed by as many succeeding actions of ejectment, as there
might be co-owners of the title asserted against him. The purpose of this
provision was to prevent multiplicity of suits by requiring the person
asserting a right against the defendant to include with him, either as
co-plaintiffs or as co-defendants, all persons standing in the same position,
so that the whole matter in dispute may be determined once and for
all-in-one litigation.”;
17. In Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo v. Herbert Markus Emil Scheer G.R.
No. 154745 January 29, 2004: the Court held that the joinder of
indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of indispensable
parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality.
Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court.
18. It is the plaintiff who is mandated by the Rules to implead all the
indispensable parties, considering that the absence of one such party
renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
present. [Quilatan v. Heirs of Quilatan (G.R. No. 183059 August 28, 2009)
and Domingo v. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235, 265 (2004):];
19. On the strength of the foregoing authorities, undersigned Counsel
respectfully moves that Plaintiffs be ordered to implead ALL indispensable
parties in this instant case and the Suspension of the Writ of Execution.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE PREMISES Considered, Defendants respectfully pray for
the Honorable Court that Plaintiffs be ordered to implead the following as
Indispensable Persons:
1. CONRADO DELLO
2. AMANDO DEXIMO
3. CATRINA DEXIMO BOLBES
4. The Children of the Querino Desarno and Consuelo Defino. And other
persons who have interest in Lot No. 5277 is covered OCT No. 47713
3 | of 4 pages
aportadera_law_offices-iloilo/CC23-2173B68/MtoImplead
 which also encompasses Lots Nos. 5272, 5274 and 5278
The Suspension of the Writ of Execution
All other just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.
Iloilo City, Philippines. 15 June 2024.

MARIO LEONARDO EMILIO O. APORTADERA

TOA Annex 36 Commission Civil Street, Jaro, Iloilo City
aportadera@gmail.com 329-5256
Attorneys Roll No. 61930
IBP (Lifetime) No. 0986500/January 10, 2015 Iloilo City
PTR No. 9228191 January 9, 2024 Dingle Iloilo
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0016231 is valid until April 14, 2025
NOTICE
ATTY. ERIC VOLTAIRE ORTIGAS
The CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court – Branch 68 Sixth Judicial Region, Dumangas, Iloilo
Atty. Ortigas,
Please take notice of the above-mentioned motion for setting of hearing as
necessary or required by the rules at the convenience of the Honorable Court
and on the availability of Counsels.
MARIO LEONARDO EMILIO O. APORTADERA
Copy Furnished by Philpost because of distance and lack of personnel to
personally deliver.
ATTY. JONEE BILL C. TAÑEZA
44 Serafin Tady Street.
5014 Sara, Iloilo
Registry Receipt no._______________ Date: __________________________

4 | of 4 pages
aportadera_law_offices-iloilo/CC23-2173B68/MtoImplead