486 Phil. 187
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant PIKE, in particular, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully prays that judgment be rendered in favor of herein defendant PIKE and ordering plaintiff:The parties submitted a Joint Memorandum[4] to the court on January 11, 1996 in which they prayed that partial judgment be rendered over a portion of the property with an area of 9,058 square meters, including the improvements thereon, at the price of P147.75 per square meter, to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner as owner thereof. On motion of the petitioner, the court issued an Order on January 12, 1996, directing the respondent to pay to the petitioner the amount of P1,338,319.50 for the portion of the property covering an area of 9,058 square meters, and a separate payment for the improvements thereon.[5] Thus, only a portion of the property with an area of 5,159 square meters was to be litigated on by the parties.That defendant PIKE further prays for such other relief and remedies that the Honorable Court may deem it just, proper and equitable under the premises.[3]
- To pay defendant PIKE the fair and prevailing value of the taken land, covering an area of 14,212 square meters, with legal interest thereon, computed from the date of its actual taking without authority of law and consent;
- On Affirmative Defenses; and, On Prayer For Summary And/Or Judgment On The Pleadings:
To require hearing thereon, with notice to plaintiff, and, thereafter, to render summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleading in favor of defendant Pike, in particular;- To pay defendant PIKE the amount of P800,000.00 in terms of actual, consequential, moral, exemplary, corrective and exemplary damages;
- To pay defendant PIKE another amount of P150,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees;
- To pay defendant PIKE the other amount of P25,000.00 as additional expenses of litigations.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant PIKE, in particular, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully prays that judgment be rendered in favor of herein defendant PIKE and ordering plaintiff:Nevertheless, the petitioner filed, on February 12, 1996, an Omnibus Motion for Leave to File and Admit Third-Party Complaint against the respondent and Crisanto Navarette and Aurelia Gapit, appending thereto his third-party complaint. On February 14, 1996, the trial court issued an Order admitting the petitioner’s amended answer; however, his motion for leave to file and admit third-party complaint was denied. Despite the service of the amended answer of the petitioner on Navarette and Gapit, the latter failed to file their answers on his cross-claims. On motion of the petitioner, the trial court issued an Order[7] on March 8, 1996, declaring Navarette and Gapit in default on the petitioner’s cross-claims, and set the reception of evidence, ex parte, thereon at 8:30 a.m. of March 15, 1996.That defendant PIKE further prays for such other relief and remedies that the Honorable Court may deem it just, proper and equitable under the premises.[6]
- To pay defendant PIKE the fair and prevailing value of the taken land, covering an area of 14,212 square meters, with legal interest thereon, computed from the date of its actual taking without authority of law and consent;
- On Affirmative Defenses; and, On Prayer For Summary And/Or Judgment On The Pleadings:
To require hearing thereon, with notice to plaintiff, and, thereafter, to render summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleading in favor of defendant Pike, in particular;- On Cross-Claims: To direct plaintiff, herein plaintiff National Power Corporation, to pay and compensate, in terms of just compensation, herein defendant Henry James Pike, in particular, to the exclusion of co-defendants Crisanto Navarette and Aurelia Gapit;
- To pay defendant PIKE the amount of P800,000.00 in terms of actual, consequential, moral, exemplary, corrective and nominal damages;
- To pay defendant PIKE another amount of P25,000.00, as additional expenses of litigations.
The petitioner opposed the motion, contending that he was a natural-born Filipino; and that he owned the property to the exclusion of Navarette and Gapit. On August 21, 1996, the trial court granted the motion of Navarette and Gapit and set aside its March 8, 1996 Order declaring them in default on the petitioner’s cross-claims, and admitted the said answer of the said defendants.[9] On September 18, 1996, the trial court issued an Order[10] terminating the pre-trial.
- Defendant Pike’s act of claiming a land that is not his and, worse, if he accepted the payment for the same knowing fully well that the same does not belong nor that he is not qualified to own such lands, is plain and simple fraud;
- If defendant Pike received anything from the NPC that should not pertain to him but to herein defendants, the same must be returned to herein defendants;
- Because of his wrongful claim that a portion of defendants’ land belongs to him, herein defendants suffered actual, moral, exemplary and litigation damages (sic), to wit:
- Actual damages for the hiring of a geodetic surveyor to prove the extent of their land ownership; the going to and from the Bureau of Lands to have the same approved, coordination with the NPC, prior to this suit, to clarify and prove their ownership thereof;
- Moral damages for the pain and the worry, the social humiliation sleepless nights and besmirched reputation caused by his wrongfully claiming the lands belonging to the herein defendants;
- Exemplary damages for claiming a land that is not his and asking the NPC to pay him for lands that he knows he does not own nor be unable to own;
- The cost of hiring the herein counsel for an agreed sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) and the costs of suit such as xeroxing, mailing, printing in the computer and others, in the amount of P50,000 for the duration of this suit;
- Others.[8]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves to give judicious weight on the rightful ownership of defendant Henry James Pike, in particular, over the remaining portion of land with an area of 5,159 square meters; and, accordingly, plaintiff National Power Corporation is hereby directed to pay defendant Pike, to the exclusion of defendants Crisanto Navarette and Aurelia Gapit, the computed amount of P762,242.25 for the area of 5,159 square meters at P147.75 per square meter.Believing that the February 24, 1997 judgment of the RTC had become final and executory, the respondent paid the amount to the petitioner.
In the meantime, all counterclaims and cross-claims lodged by [the] respective parties in this case, including all pleadings of the same imports, are hereby dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[11]
[THE] PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO IMPLEAD AS RESPONDENTS THE PROPER PARTIES; OTHERWISE STATED, AURELIA GUPIT (SIC) AND CRISANTO NAVARETTE, NOT NPC, SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENTS IN THE INSTANT PETITION.[13]The respondent further claims that the petitioner has no cause of action against it, considering that it had already paid the petitioner the total amount of P2,100,561.75 for the entire property sought to be expropriated, including that portion claimed by Gapit and Navarette, the defendants-appellants in the CA:
In passing, it is worthy to note for purposes of record that the original appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 56686), wherein the decision rendered by the Honorable Court of Appeals on April 30, 2001, last; and, on account of said decision the present appeal has been lodged with the Honorable Supreme [Court], was then elevated to the Honorable Appellate Court, in Manila, by way of [an] appeal, without the knowledge or acquiescence of herein appellant Pike. In effect, the partial judgment (Annex “O,” supra) rendered under Civil Case No. 2245-95-C (petition) (RTC-Br. 35, Calamba) as well as the subsequent Court order, dated February 24, 1997, (Annex “M,” supra) were both stamped with finality and, thus, put to end appellant Pike’s claims for just compensation on his expropriated land had been paid in the total amount of TWO MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY ONE & 75/100 (P2,100,561.75), as its full compensation that ultimately terminated the original expropriation proceeding in so as herein appellant Pike and the appellee Napocor were concern (sic).In his reply, the petitioner asserts that there is no longer a need to still implead Navarette and Gapit as parties, as they had already been given their day in court in the trial and appellate courts.
Thus, as between appellee Napocor and appellant Pike, there is no cogent reason and legal basis for the latter (Pike) to cross-examine the witnesses of appellee (Napocor), nor to adduce evidence on his part.[14]
Sec. 4. Contents of petition. – The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner; and shall (a) state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; and (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42.[15]The adverse parties in the Rule refer to the parties in whose favor the appellate court rendered its decision adverse to the petitioner, as appellee. Under the decision of the CA, the aggrieved parties are the petitioner and the respondent NPC; on the other hand, Gapit and Navarette, the winning parties in the CA, are the adverse parties in this case.
Sec. 2. Parties-in-interest. – A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless, otherwise, authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.They are, in fact, indispensable parties under Section 7, Rule 3 of the said Rules:
Sec. 7. 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.Unless Gapit and Navarette are joined as parties-respondents, any judgment of the Court in this case shall not be binding on them. All subsequent actuations of the Court shall then be rendered null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but also as to those present.[16] The Court cannot thus proceed without their presence.