G.R. No. L-27247 April 20, 1983
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE NO. 386 OF THE CITY OF BAGUIO,
BAGUIO CITIZENS ACTION INC., and JUNIOR CHAMBER OF BAGUIO CITY, INC., petitioners-appellants,
vs.
THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BAGUIO, respondents-appellees.
FACTS:
The City of Baguio passed Ordinance No. 386 which took
effect on February 23, 1967. This ordinance is primarily designed to extend a
helping hand to the numerous landless city residents and the called 'Squatters'
within the Baguio Townsite in their desire to acquire residential lots which
they may rightly call their own.
A petition for declaratory relief filed with the Court of
First Instance of Baguio, Branch II, praying for a judgment to declare the
Ordinance as invalid and illegal ab initio. The
respondents-appellees, the City Council and the City Mayor, filed motions to
dismiss the petition but which were denied.
In the decision thereafter rendered, the petition was
dismissed on the grounds that: 1) another court, the Court of First Instance of
Baguio, Branch I, had declared the Ordinance valid in a criminal case filed
against the squatters for illegal construction, and the Branch II of the same
court cannot, in a declaratory proceeding, review and determine the validity of
said judgment pursuant to the policy of judicial respect and stability; 2)
those who come within the protection of the ordinance have not been made
parties to the suit in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 63 and it has been
held that the non-joinder of such parties is a jurisdictional defect; and 3)
the court is clothed with discretion to refuse to make any declaration where
the declaration is not necessary and proper at the time under all circumstances.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the non-joinder of “squatters” is a
jurisdictional defect
RULING:
No. The non-inclusion of the squatters mentioned in the
Ordinance in question as party defendants in this case cannot defeat the
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Baguio. There is nothing in
Section 2 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court which says that the non-joinder of
persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the
declaration is a jurisdictional defect. Said section merely states that
"All persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which
would be affected by the declaration; and no declaration shall, except or
otherwise provided in these rules, prejudice the rights of persons not parties
to the action." This section contemplates a situation where there are
other persons who would be affected by the declaration, but were not impleaded
as necessary parties, in which case the declaration shall not prejudice them.
If at all, the case may be dismissed not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
but for the reason stated in Section 5 of the same Rule stating that "the
Court may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to construe
instruments in any case where a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or
controversy which gave rise to the action, or any case where the declaration or
construction is not necessary and proper at the time under all
circumstances."
The reason for the law requiring the joinder of all
necessary parties is that failure to do so would deprive the declaration of the
final and pacifying function the action for declaratory relief is calculated to
subserve, as they would not be bound by the declaration and may raise the
Identical issue. In the case at bar, although it is true that any
declaration by the court would affect the squatters, the latter are not
necessary parties because the question involved is the power of the Municipal
Council to enact the Ordinances in question. Whether or not they are impleaded,
any determination of the controversy would be binding upon the squatters.
WELL WRITTEN. A 10
ReplyDelete