Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FABIANA C. VDA. DE SALAZAR, Petitioner, Court of Appeals, Primitivo Nepomuceno and Emerenciana Nepomuceno, Respondents
FABIANA C. VDA. DE SALAZAR, Petitioner, Court of Appeals, Primitivo Nepomuceno and Emerenciana Nepomuceno, Respondents
DE SALAZAR, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, PRIMITIVO NEPOMUCENO and EMERENCIANA NEPOMUCENO, respondents
FACTS:
ISSUE:
WON a formal substitution of heirs is necessary when the real party in interest in an ejectment suit
had already died
HELD:
No. It is this court's view that compliance with the substantive aspect of the rule
despite failure to comply with the formal aspect may be considered substantial
compliance. Such is the situation in the case at bench because the only inference
that could be deduced from the following facts was that there was active participation
of the heirs in the defense of the deceased after his death:
1. The original lawyer did not stop representing the deceased. It would be absurd to
think that the lawyer would continue to represent somebody if nobody is paying him
his fees. The lawyer continued to represent him in the litigation before the trial court
which lasted for about two more years. A dead party cannot pay him any fee. With or
without payment of fees, the fact remains that the said counsel was allowed by the
petitioner who was well aware of the instant litigation to continue appearing as
counsel until August 23, 1993 when the challenged decision was rendered;
2. After the death of the defendant, his wife, who is the petitioner in the instant case,
even testified in the court and declared that her husband is already deceased. She
knew therefore that there was a litigation against her husband and that somehow her
interest and those of her children were involved;
3. This petition for annulment of judgment was filed only after the appeal was
decided against the defendant on April 3, 1995, more than one and a half year (sic)
after the decision was rendered (even if we were to give credence to petitioner's
manifestation that she was not aware that an appeal had been made);
4. The Supreme Court has already established that there is such a thing as jurisdiction by estoppel.
This principle was established even in cases where jurisdiction over the subject matter was being
questioned. In the instant case, only jurisdiction over the person of the heirs is in issue. Jurisdiction
over the person may be acquired by the court more easily than jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Jurisdiction over the person may be acquired by the simple appearance of the person in court as did
herein petitioner appear