RAMOS V.

RAMOS, 399 SCRA 43(2003)

Facts:
Petitioners father (Paulino V. Chanliongco Jr.), aunt (Narcisa), and uncles (Mario and Antonio) co-owned a parcel of
land. By virtue of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by the co-owners in Narcisas favor, her daughter
(petitioners cousin), Adoracion C. Mendoza, sold to the respondents the said land. Because of the conflict amongst
the heirs of the co-owners, respondents filed with the RTC a complaint for interpleader to resolve the various
ownership claims.
The RTC upheld the sale, insofar as the aunts share was concerned. It ruled that the cousin had no authority to sell
the other co-owners shares since the SPA was executed in her mothers favor only.
The CA modified the RTCs ruling. It held that, while the cousin did not hold the requisite SPA, the sale she had
conducted was nevertheless valid because she had been authorized by her mother to be the latters sub-agent.
Consequently, petitioners filed a motion to set aside the CAs decision. According to them, they had not been served
a copy of the summons, as well as impleaded as parties to the case in the RTC. CA, however, denied this motion.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether petitioners should have been impleaded in the instant case
Held:
NO. The complaint filed by respondents with the RTC called for an interpleader to determine the ownership of the real
property in question. Specifically, it forced persons claiming an interest in the land to settle the dispute among
themselves as to which of them owned the property. Essentially, it sought to resolve the ownership of the land and
was not directed against the personal liability of any particular person. It was therefore a real action, because it
affected title to or possession of real property. As such, the complaint was brought against the deceased registered
co-owners, as represented by their respective estates.
Clearly, petitioners were not the registered owners of the land, but represented merely an inchoate interest thereto as
the heirs of one of the co-owners. They had no standing in court with respect to actions over a property of the estate,
because the latter was represented by an executor or administrator. Thus, there was no need to implead them as
defendants in the case, inasmuch as the estates of the deceased co-owners had already been made parties.
Furthermore, at the time the Complaint was filed, the 1964 Rules of Court were still in effect. Under the old Rules,
specifically Section 3 of Rule 3, an executor or administrator may sue or be sued without joining the party for whose
benefit the action is prosecuted or defended. The present rule, however, requires the joinder of the beneficiary or the
party for whose benefit the action is brought. Under the former Rules, an executor or administrator is allowed to either
sue or be sued alone in that capacity. In the present case, it was the estate of petitioners father Paulino Chanliongco,
as represented by Sebrio Tan Quiming and Associates, that was included as defendant and served summons. As it
was, there was no need to include petitioners as defendants. Not being parties, they were not entitled to be served
summons. Petition denied.
Doctrine: An action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed
against the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its object
is to subject that persons interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation