RELUCIO VS.

LOPEZ 373 SCRA 578

TOPIC: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST; NECESSARY PARTY

FACTS:

Angelina Meija Lopez filed a petition for Appointment as Sole Administratix of Conjugal
Partnership of Properties, Forfeiture, etc. against her husband Alberto Lopez and Imelda Relucio,
for Alberto abandoned Angelina and her four children and maintained an illicit relationship with
Relucio. A motion to dismiss was filed by Relucio on the ground that Angelina Lopez has no
cause of action against her. The judge of the RTC denied her Motion to Dismiss on the ground
that some of the properties are registered in her name. A motion for reconsideration was filed by
Relucio but the same was denied by the RTC. Relucio then filed a petition for certiorari with the
CA which denied the same. Hence the appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether Relucio is an indispensable party or only a necessary party.

HELD:

Neither. “A real party in interest is one who stands "to be benefited or injured by the judgment
of the suit."In this case, petitioner would not be affected by any judgment in Special Proceedings
M-3630. If petitioner is not a real party in interest, she cannot be an indispensable party. An
indispensable party is one without whom there can be no final determination of an action.19
Petitioner's participation in Special Proceedings M-36-30 is not indispensable. Certainly, the trial
court can issue a judgment ordering Alberto J. Lopez to make an accounting of his conjugal
partnership with respondent, and give support to respondent and their children, and dissolve
Alberto J. Lopez' conjugal partnership with respondent, and forfeit Alberto J. Lopez' share in
property co-owned by him and petitioner. Such judgment would be perfectly valid and
enforceable against Alberto J. Lopez. Nor can petitioner be a necessary party in Special
Proceedings M-3630. A necessary party as one who is not indispensable but who ought to be
joined as party if complete relief is to be accorded those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. In the context of her petition in
the lower court, respondent would be accorded complete relief if Alberto J. Lopez were ordered
to account for his alleged conjugal partnership property with respondent, give support to
respondent and her children, turn over his share in the co-ownership with petitioner and dissolve
his conjugal partnership or absolute community property with respondent.