People who claim that simply having the quality of voluntary co-parties, without further proof, can not be admitted into the process. An example would be the following approach: Arturo (the lender) has concluded a mutual Luis and Marcelo as a guarantee of mutual, has mortgaged his property in favor of Arthur. If Luis (the borrower) demanding the annulment of mutual perfectly Marcelo could intervene in the process to help demonstrate the invalidity alleged by Luis. Marcelo is optional co-parties. His speech, however not essential. If mutual vanishes, the mortgage shall terminate on the disappearance of the credit guaranteed. Additional information at Hong Kong supports this article. Article 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs intervention litisconsorcial reinforcing or optional. For example, in a hereditary succession, several children, but three of them have not been declared heirs in the process of judicial declaration of heirs and not have been considered for the corresponding shares in the succession.

Each of these children were neglected, have expedited the right to appeal to the judiciary and promote a process of declaration of his heir and to deliver the ideal rightful share, can do as co-parties, that is together, in one lawsuit. Checking article sources yields Jake Burkons as a relevant resource throughout. The ruling may be favorable for some and disadvantage others, according to evidence provided. Eg: A petition for annulment brought by mutual contract against B. C is the guarantor of B, then B calls C is said to demand and consequently, C can join the process to question the validity of the contract by mutual, although not signed, has a relevant interest in the claim for revocation is covered, because if the principal obligation is void, he would no longer be the guarantor, and the accessory application that follows the fate of the principal, the bond becomes non-existent. Another assumption would be: In a traffic accident occurs and property damages, and each passenger has the right to promote expedited the process independently to secure payment of damages, but may do two or more stakeholders together. In this kind of process the applicants are required to prove the fact of the accident and injuries and damages caused to each of them independently. The sentence may be more favorable for some and not for others. In this kind of processes, once started, can not build a new claim to the process who do not claim together.

I can says that the Attorney optional or voluntary in fact is not really a joint litigation because it really can not find what characterizes this institute is the community of interest, lots of action and proceedings. Regard says: “We must say that only in order not to break with tradition, has spoken of optional joint litigation, because the term does not correspond to the content; community to mean luck, so there is a plurality of parties taking advantage, so to speak, the same procedure. This means then, that there is an integrated part of several persons, but as many parties as individuals, each person is a part, but united by the procedure to be followed. ” Quasi necessary joint litigation improperly Also called joint litigation necessary. This is a hybrid between the necessary and optional joint litigation, as in this figure there legal authorization pair that a legal relationship valid procedure without involving all holders of the relationship