FELIPA ARANICO-RABINO, MARCELO ARANICO AND MELITON ARANICO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. NARCISO A. AQUINO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN, THIRD JUDIC…

The records of this case–docketed as Civil Case No. 287-R in the Court below–were forwarded to this Court from the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch XIV at Rosales, Hon. Judge
Narciso A. Aquino, presiding, in view of the appeal interposed by the
plaintiffs (peti­tioners herein) on pure questions of law.

Considering that Republic Act 5440 is applicable, as only questions of law
are raised, this Court in its Resolution of June 29, 1977, required “the
plaintiffs-appellants to pay the docket and legal research fund fees and to
file petition for review on certiorari, filing and serving the same in the form required for
petitions for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
Appeals, both within fifteen (15) days from notice hereof.” Pursuant
thereto, herein petitioners (plaintiffs below) paid the docket and legal
research fund fees and filed the required petition, both in due time.  No proof of service of a copy thereof to the
Court of First Instance and to the adverse party accompanied the petition.  However, the required proof of service was
posted three (3) days later and was actually received by the Court on October
10, 1977.

It appears that
petitioners-co-owners filed a complaint in the court below to recover from
private respondent possession of the lot in con­troversy.  In his answer, the latter resisted the action
on the ground, inter alia, that the property is owned by the late Pedro Meimban and his
successors-in-interest, private respondent being one of them.  At the conference on January 10, 1977, in the
chambers of respondent Judge attended by petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Eugenio
Ma. Mosuela, private respondent and his counsel, Atty. Hugo B. Sansano and Jacob Meimban, who is
one of the heirs of the late Pedro Meimban, it was agreed that the complaint be
amended to include all the heirs of the late Pedro Meimban “in order that
there will be a final adjudication of the rights of the parties in this
case.” When Atty. Mosuela, as counsel for petitioners, received the order
requiring him to amend the complaint within a period of thirty (30) days, he filed instead a motion to set
aside said order.  The motion was denied and counsel was
given another period of ten (10) days within which to file the amended
complaint.  A motion to reconsider the
order of  denial was filed by Atty.
Mosuela, who contended that the heirs of the late Pedro Meimban are not indispensable
parties in the instant case  for
ejectment; that, even if they are, they have already appeared in the case
through their counsel; and prayed that the order requiring him to amend the
complaint be reconsidered and, instead, the other heirs of Pedro Meimban be
“required to file their answer in intervention.” Respondent Judge
denied the motion for reconsideration and again gave petitioners another period
of ten (10) days from notice within which to file the required amended
complaint.  Instead of complying with
latest order, Atty. Mosuela filed a motion for clarification of the same.  Respondent Judge ruled that the order
“is clear and explicit” and, as the petitioners did not amend the
complaint within the extended periods
given them, he ordered “the case DISMISSED without prejudice.”

The motion to reconsider the dismissal order having been denied,
petitioners filed the instant petition for review to set aside the order of
dismissal and to order the lower court to reinstate their complaint.

The petition is clearly without merit.  Section 2, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of
Court expressly empowers the trial court to dismiss the action “upon
motion of the defendant or upon the Court’s own motion” if the plaintiff
“fails x x x to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” The trial court gave
petitioners no less than a total of fifty (50) days to amend the complaint to
include all the heirs of the deceased Pedro Meimban who are indispensable
parties “in order that there will be a final adjudication of the rights of
the parties in their case.” (Rule 3, Section 7, RRC).  Not only did petitioners’ counsel refuse to
comply with the order of the trial court but, instead, he would have the trial
court require the other heirs of Pedro Meimban “to file their answer in
intervention”, which is unprocedural because under Section 2, Rule 12 of
the Revised Rules of Court, intervention is purely a voluntary act on
the part of a person who “has legal interest in the matter in litigation,
or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.”

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED due course for obvious lack of
merit.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.