04 Oco V Limbaring.docx

OCO v LIMBARING

FACTS: ● ● ●

● ●

Sabas Limbaring sold two lots to Jennifer and Sarah Limbaring, his nieces. Sensing irregularities in the transaction, Sabas’ daughter Percita Oco filed a case of perjury and falsification of documents against the father of Sarah and Jennifer, Vitor Limbaring. In a pre-litigation conference, the parties agreed that the two parcels of land should be reconveyed to Percita, who was to pay for all expenses incurred for the transfer of the title to her name, totaling P25,000. Percita filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Victor was not the real party in interest. In his Opposition, Victor claimed that he was a trustor, whose property was being held in trust by his daughters.

WON Victor is a real party in interest - NO  Rule 3, Sec. 2 requires that 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest  The provision has the ff purpose: 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.  Interest, within the meaning of the Rules, means material interest, as distinguished from mere curiosity.  The parties to a contract are the real parties in interest in an action upon it. One who is not a party to a contract, and for whose benefit it was not expressly made, cannot maintain an action on it. One cannot do so, even if the contract performed by the contracting parties would incidentally inure to one’s benefit  As an exception, parties who have not taken part in a contract may show that they have a real interest affected by its performance or annulment (ex. contracts pour autrui)  In this case, Victor’s complaint is an action on a contract because he sought the rescission of the sale between his daughters and Percita. The Deeds of Absolute sale show Jeniffer and Sarah Jane as vendors and Percita as vendee. Clearly, the action upon the contract may be instituted only by his daughters against Percita.  To show material interest, Victor argues that a trust was created when he purchased the properties from Sabas in favor of his daughters. He alleged that as a trustor, he stands to be benefited or injured by any decision in the case.  However, Victor has only presented bare assertions that a trust was created. The burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the part asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and its elements.  Victor’s alleged acts of paying the price for the properties and naming his children as owners in the title gives rise to the presumption that a gift was effected in their favor. He failed to rebut such presumption. Absent any clear proof that a trust was created, he cannot be deemed a real party in interest.