Second Division: Leonardo-De Castro, JJ
Second Division: Leonardo-De Castro, JJ
Second Division: Leonardo-De Castro, JJ
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
Before this Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court assailing the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
dated June 26, 2001 and its related Resolution[2] dated September 4, 2001
in CA-G.R. SP No. 59712. The assailed Decision dismissed the petition
for certiorari filed by petitioner Judge Antonio C. Sumaljag (the petitioner)
in the interlocutory matter outlined below in Civil Cases B-1239 and B-
1281 before the trial court. The challenged Resolution denied the petitioners
motion for reconsideration.
ANTECEDENT FACTS
On November 16, 1993, Josefa D. Maglasang (Josefa) filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Baybay, Leyte a
[3]
complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. B-1239) for the nullity of the deed
of sale of real property purportedly executed between her as vendor and the
spouses Diosdidit and Menendez Literato (the respondent spouses) as
vendees. The complaint alleged that this deed of sale dated October 15,
1971 of Lot 1220-D is spurious. Josefa was the sister of
Menendez Maglasang Literato (Menendez).They were two (2) of the six (6)
heirs who inherited equal parts of a 6.3906-hectare property (Lot 1220)
passed on to them by their
parents Cristito and Inecita Diano Maglasang.[4] Lot 1220-D was partitioned
to Josefa, while Lot 1220-E was given to Menendez.
Josefa died on May 3, 1999 during the pendency of Civil Case Nos. B-1239
and B-1281.
On August 13, 1999, Atty. Zenen A. Puray (Atty. Puray) - the petitioners
and Josefas common counsel - asked the RTC in Civil Case No. 1239 that he
be given an extended period or up to September 10, 1999 within which to
file a formal notice of death and substitution of party.
The RTC denied Atty. Purays motion for substitution and instead
ordered the appearance of Michaeles as representative of the
deceased Josefa. This Order provides:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion is hereby
DENIED for lack of merit and instead order the appearance of
Mrs. Mechailes Maglasang-Rodrigo of Brgy. Binulho, Albuera, Leyte, as
representative of the deceased Josefa Maglasang.
SO ORDERED.[11]
The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right to due process of
every party to the litigation who may be affected by the intervening
death. The deceased litigant is herself or himself protected as he/she
continues to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed
legal representative of his estate.[15]
In the present case, it is undisputed that the counsel for Josefa did in
fact notify the lower court, although belatedly, of the fact of her
death.[18] However, he did as well inform the lower court that
Further, counsel asked that the deceased Josefa Maglasang in her capacity
as plaintiff and as Third Party Counterclaim Defendant be substituted in the
case at bar by JUDGE ANTONIO SUMALJAG whose address is
38 Osmena Street, Ormoc City pursuant to Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The reporting issue that goes into the core of this case is whether
counsel properly gave the court the name and address of the legal
representative of the deceased that Section 16, Rule 3 specifies. We rule
that he did not. The legal representatives that the provision speaks of, refer
to those authorized by law the administrator, executor or guardian [19] who,
under the rule on settlement of estate of deceased persons,[20] is constituted
to take over the estate of the deceased. Section 16, Rule 3 likewise expressly
provides that the heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for
the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator . . .. Significantly, the person now the present petitioner - that
counsel gave as substitute was not one of those mentioned under Section 16,
Rule 3. Rather, he is a counterclaim co-defendant of the deceased
whose proferred justification for the requested substitution is the transfer to
him of the interests of the deceased in the litigation prior to her death.
Under the circumstances, both the lower court and the CA were
legally correct in not giving effect to counsels suggested substitute.
For the protection of the interests of the decedent, this Court has in
previous instances recognized the heirs as proper representatives of the
decedent, even when there is already an administrator appointed by the
court. When no administrator has been appointed, as in this case, there is
all the more reason to recognize the heirs as the proper representatives of
the deceased.
Josefas death certificate[24] shows that she was single at the time of her
death. The records do not show that she left a will.Therefore, as correctly
held by the CA, in applying Section 16, Rule 3, her heirs are her surviving
sisters (Michaelis, Maria, Zosima, and Consolacion) and the children of her
deceased sister, Lourdes (Manuel, Cesar, Huros and Regulo) who should be
her legal representatives. Menendez, although also a sister, should be
excluded for being one of the adverse parties in the cases before the RTC.
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
*
Designated as additional member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 504 dated May 15, 2008.
**
Designated as additional member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 505 dated May 15, 2008.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon and concurred in by Associate
Justice Eubulo G. Verzola (deceased) and Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes; rollo, pp. 85-91.
[2]
Id., p. 92.
[3]
Annex A, id., pp. 30-34.
[4]
In Civil Case B-641 for Partition and Damages.
[5]
Annex B, rollo, pp. 36-44.
[6]
Annex D, id., pp. 48-54.
[7]
Annex G, id., p. 75.
[8]
Annex H, id., pp. 76-77.
[9]
Id., p. 79.
[10]
It appears from the records that Remismundo D. Maglasang is the son of Zosima D. Maglasang.
[11]
Order dated December 16, 1990, Annex I, rollo, pp. 81-82.
[12]
Annex J, id., pp. 83-84.
[13]
Annex K, id., pp. 85-91.
[14]
Annex L, id., pp. 92-93.
[15]
Napere v. Barbarona, G.R. No. 160426, January 31, 2008, citing Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,
455 SCRA 460, 478 (2005).
[16]
G.R. No. 144891, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 533.
[17]
Lavina v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78295, April 10, 1989, 171 SCRA 691; Haberer v. CA, Nos. L-
42699 to L-42707, May 26, 1981, 104 SCRA 540.
[18]
Annex H, rollo, p. 76.
[19]
In the commentary of Justice Oscar M. Herrera (ret.) in his book Remedial Law, Volume 1, 2007
edition, he stated that the terms administrator, executor, or guardian to whom the notice of death
should be addressed under the old Rules, were deleted and deemed included in the term legal
representative or representatives.
[20]
Rule 73-90 of the Rules of Court.
[21]
Section 19. Transfer of interest. In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or
against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is
transferred to be substituted I the action or joined with the original party.
[22]
San Juan, Jr. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 167321, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 410.
[23]
Gochan v. Young, G.R. No. 131889, March 12, 2001, 354 SCRA 207.
[24]
Annex F, rollo, p. 74.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: