ISIDRO ABLAZA V. REPUBLICÂ
G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010
DOCTRINE:
The plaintiff must be the party who stands to be benefited by the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. Thus, only the party who can demonstrate a “proper interest” can file the action.
FACTS:
On October 17, 2000, the petitioner filed in the RTC in Cataingan, Masbate a petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage contracted on December 26, 1949 between his late brother Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila Honato.
The petitioner alleged that the marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila had been celebrated without a marriage license, due to such license being issued only on January 9, 1950, thereby rendering the marriage void ab initio for having been solemnized without a marriage license. He insisted that his being the surviving brother of Cresenciano who had died without any issue entitled him to one-half of the real properties acquired by Cresenciano before his death, thereby making him a real party in interest; and that any person, himself included, could impugn the validity of the marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila at any time, even after the death of Cresenciano, due to the marriage being void ab initio.
On October 18, 2000, the RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that petition is filed out of time and that petitioner is not a party to marriage. Motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal order of the RTC on the ground that the action must be filed by the proper party, which in this case should be filed by any of the parties to the marriage. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is a real party in interest inthe action to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage of his deceased brother?
HELD:
Yes. The applicable law when marriage was contracted between Cresenciano and Leonila on December 26, 1949, is the old Civil Code, the law in effect at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Hence, the rule on the exclusivity of the parties to the marriage as having the right to initiate the action for declaration of nullity of the marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC had absolutely no application to the petitioner. The case was reinstated and its records returned to RTC for further proceedings.
Ratio:
Section 2, paragraph (a), of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SCexplicitly provides the limitation that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. Such limitation demarcates a line to distinguish between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the regime of the Civil Code. This specifically extends only to marriages covered by the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988, but, being a procedural rule that is prospective in application, is confined only to proceedings commenced after March 15, 2003.
Assuming that the petitioner was as he claimed himself to be, then he has a material interest in the estate of Cresenciano that will be adversely affected by any judgment in the suit. Indeed, a brother like the petitioner, albeit not a compulsory heir, has the right to succeed to the estate of a deceased brother under the conditions stated in Article 1001 and Article 1003 of the Civil Code. The plaintiff must still be the party who stands to be benefited by the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. Thus, only the party who can demonstrate a “proper interest” can file the action. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.
