SANTOS V. HEIRS OF LUSTRE (REMEDIAL)

Forum shopping exists when the elements if litis pendentia are present or when a final judgment in one case will amount o res judicata in the other. Among its elements are identity of the parties, identity of the subject matter, and identity of the causes of action in the two cases.

The dispute in this case centers on whether there exists identity of causes of action and identity of parties between Civil Case No. 1330 and Civil Case No. 2115.

Concededly, the causes of action in Civil Case No. 1330 and Civil Case no. 2115 are identical. There is identity of causes of action if the same evidence needed in the first case will sustain the second action, and this principle applies even if the reliefs sought in the two cases are different. Without a doubt, the same evidence will be necessary to sustain the causes of action in these two cases which are substantially based on the same series of transactions. In fact, similar reliefs are prayed for in the two cases. Both complaints ultimately seek the cancellation of the title of the alleged transferees and the recovery of the subject property.

Despite this similarity, however, we hold that respondents are not guilty of forum shopping because the element of identity of parties is not present.

The determination of whether there is identity of parties rests on the commonality of the parties' interest, regardless of whether they are indispensable parties or not. The issue of whether the additional parties are indispensable parties are not acquires real significance only when considering the validity of the judgment that will be rendered in the earlier case. This is so because if the additional parties are indispensable parties, then no valid judgment can be rendered against them in the earlier case in which they did not participate, and this will foreclose the application of res judicata which requires the existence of a final judgment.

without question, a co-owner may bring an action to recover the co-owned property without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. In such case, the other heirs are merely necessary parties.

However, if the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, as in civil Case No. 1330, the action will not prosper unless he impleads the other co-owners who are indispensable parties. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. The trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over the indispensable parties who are not impleaded in the case and judgment thereon cannot be valid and binding against them. a decision that is null and void for want of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court is not a decision in contemplation of law; hence, it can never become final and executory.