Otherwise, utter failure should be limited to inhibitory, as I mentioned earlier. Guillen4 Fiare its procedural Victor says: "The need is the co-parties requiring intervention in a single process from its beginning, and it appears all co-parties in cases in which action and intention can only be validly proposed for several ope legis persons or against several persons. The purpose of this figure is to obtain in a single process for a single resolution all co-parties, because it is a single claim in respect of which the wing is integrated standing (active or passive) for all these people, but not separately but together. " Galvez5 Professor Juan Monroy shows us a good example when he says: "A spouse claim the invalidity of a purchase agreement on a social or common good, as it has been sold by her husband without his intervention. However, the demand is directed only against the buyer, leaving out the procedural relationship to your spouse. The lawsuit does not reflect the substantive relationship, so, being the conflict of interest the nullity of a legal act, are part of the substantive relationship (relationship conflict) who requested the nullity and those who participated with his declaration of intent in the act . Since the spouse has not been sued seller, it is clear that the relationship is flawed procedure, failed to sue a necessary co-parties.
" 1) Classification of co-parties necessary .- At his source, it may be: necessary and proper joint litigation improperly required. For even more details, read what Source Financial says on the issue. a. – joint litigation .- Here there is actual need this type of joint litigation where the law expressly ordered to integrate, you can, using the expressions of Jaime Guasp, argue that it is "a burden" established by law.