GR 102726; (May, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102726 May 27, 1994
TSHIATE L. UY and RAMON UY, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIVIDAD CALAUNAN-UY, and THE ESTATE OF MENILO B. UY, SR., REPRESENTED BY MENILO C. UY, JR., NILDA C. UY, MELVIN C. UY and MERLITO C. UY, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Natividad Calaunan-Uy was the common-law wife of the late Menilo B. Uy, Sr., for about thirty-six years, with whom she had four children. After Menilo Uy, Sr. died on September 27, 1990, petitioners Tshiate Uy and Ramon Uy initiated Special Proceedings No. M-2606 for letters of administration of his estate. On February 27, 1991, private respondent filed Civil Case No. 91-573 for “Partition of Properties Under Co-ownership” against the Estate of Menilo Uy, Sr., represented by their four children. On April 23, 1991, the parties submitted a Compromise Agreement, and a judgment based on that compromise was rendered on April 24, 1991. On May 24, 1991, petitioner Tshiate Uy filed an omnibus motion alleging she was the surviving legal spouse of Menilo, Sr. by virtue of a Hong Kong marriage and prayed that she and her son Ramon Uy be allowed to intervene, contending the compromise judgment was a patent nullity. The trial court allowed the intervention and set aside the compromise judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s orders, holding that the intervention came too late and that the trial court ignored the rule on finality of judgments.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the intervention came too late.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court ignored the rule on finality of judgments by setting aside the compromise judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s order allowing intervention.
1. On the issue of intervention: The Court held that petitioners are indispensable parties under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, as their inclusion was essential for the proper disposition of the partition case. Citing Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that while the intervention was filed after the compromise judgment, procedural rules should not thwart justice. The trial court itself found that the intervenors had a legal interest in the matter, and without indispensable parties, a judgment cannot attain real finality.
2. On the issue of finality of judgment: The Court impliedly agreed with the petitioners’ assertion that a judgment void ab initio cannot acquire finality. The compromise agreement did not include petitioners and therefore could not bind them. The action for partition was governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, as Menilo Uy, Sr. died after its effectivity, and factual issues regarding property ownership were yet to be determined in the pending special proceedings for administration of the estate.