REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. CLEOFE RAMOS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. CLEOFE RAMOS, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. FELIPE ASUNCION, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY D…

Republic versus Ramos

The Case

This is the Republic of the Philippines against Cleofe Ramos and her co-defendants, with Felipe Asuncion and his wife drawn in as third-party defendants. The Republic sued to annul the registration and original certificate of title over Lot Number 2 of Plan Psu-117285 in Bulacan, to have the lot declared part of the public domain and reverted to the State, and to stop the defendants from excavating the Wawang Dapdap River and building on the foreshore land beside it, with damages. The defendants answered that any illegal excavation was not their doing but that of the Asuncion spouses, and they filed a third-party complaint to bring those spouses into the case. The case matters because it fixes the boundary of the third-party complaint: a defendant may implead another only for relief in respect of the plaintiff's claim, never to litigate an unrelated grievance of his own.

Procedural History

The Republic filed its complaint in the Court of First Instance against the defendants, who answered with a counterclaim and, with prior leave of court, filed a third-party complaint against the Asuncion spouses. The third-party defendants moved to dismiss on three grounds: that the third-party complaint was improper, that the third-party plaintiffs had no legal capacity to file it, and that it stated no cause of action. The trial court granted the motion, and denied reconsideration. The defendants and third-party plaintiffs appealed seasonably to the Supreme Court, which resolved the appeal on the sole question of the propriety of the third-party complaint.

Facts

The Republic brought suit over Lot Number 2 of Plan Psu-117285, registered in the defendants' names, claiming the lot belongs to the public domain and asking for its reversion, and further claiming that the defendants had illegally excavated the Wawang Dapdap River and built works on land covered by their foreshore lease application along that river.

The defendants denied the illegal acts and pointed elsewhere. They alleged that it was Felipe Asuncion who had systematically reduced the width of the river and of Manila Bay by artificial accretion, driving stakes and placing adobe stone on the river bed, and who had enlarged his wife's holding from a mere twenty-seven hectares of fishpond to almost two hundred hectares, nearly two kilometers long.

With leave of court, the defendants filed a third-party complaint against the Asuncion spouses, praying that they be ordered to remove their dikes along the two-kilometer stretch and the stakes and adobe stones on the river bed. The third-party defendants moved to dismiss, the trial court granted the motion, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the third-party complaint against the Asuncion spouses was proper, considering that the claim against them was unrelated to the Republic's claim against the defendants.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly dismissed the third-party complaint notwithstanding the policy against multiplicity of suits.

Applicable Provisions

Section 12 of Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, as it then stood, defines the third-party complaint:

Third-party complaint. - A third party-complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third-party defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent's claim.

The provision bears on the case because it limits the third-party claim to relief in respect of the plaintiff's claim, which is the very limit the defendants overstepped.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the third-party complaint improper. The rule allows such a complaint to minimize lawsuits, and a motion to dismiss it should be denied where it appears probable that a second action will follow if the plaintiff prevails but would be avoided by keeping the third-party defendant in the case. Yet that policy has a ceiling: a third-party defendant may not be impleaded if the effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action.

Here the Republic's causes of action against the defendants were unrelated to the defendants' claims against the Asuncion spouses. A declaration that the lot is public domain, and that the defendants made the excavations and constructions, would not by itself give the defendants a cause of action against the Asuncions. The Asuncions would be liable, if at all, on an entirely separate ground: that their own illegal works on a different parcel harmed the defendants. There was no averment that the defendants' acts were induced or rendered necessary by the Asuncions' acts, nor that but for those acts the lot would not be public domain at all. The allegation that the river would not have bent toward the defendants' property and become shallower and narrower did not show how that circumstance could affect the Republic's cause of action or render the Asuncions liable for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or other relief in respect of the Republic's claim.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint. The avoidance of multiplicity of suits cannot be an excuse for indiscriminately filing any claim a defendant may have against a third-party defendant, although unrelated to the main action. Having found no legal basis for the third-party complaint, the Court found it unnecessary to pass on the other grounds raised.

Doctrine

A third-party complaint is a claim by a defending party, with leave of court, against a person not a party to the action, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of the plaintiff's claim. The test of propriety is whether the third-party defendant's liability arises in respect of that claim, such that a second action would probably follow if the plaintiff prevails. A third-party defendant may not be impleaded if the effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action. The policy against multiplicity of suits does not license a defendant to consolidate an unrelated grievance of his own.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the third-party complaint, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a third-party defendant may not be impleaded if the effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action. Examiners use this case to test the limits of the third-party complaint and the policy against multiplicity of suits.