Melba continued defending her deceased parents in court proceedings and the court had already acquired jurisdiction over her prior to her parents' deaths. Therefore, a formal substitution of Melba was not necessary even though notices of death were not filed for both her parents. The purpose of informing heirs that they are being brought under the court's jurisdiction was fulfilled because Melba was already a named defendant in the amended complaint filed by Cardenas. As long as the substantive requirements are met, lack of formal compliance does not violate due process.
Melba continued defending her deceased parents in court proceedings and the court had already acquired jurisdiction over her prior to her parents' deaths. Therefore, a formal substitution of Melba was not necessary even though notices of death were not filed for both her parents. The purpose of informing heirs that they are being brought under the court's jurisdiction was fulfilled because Melba was already a named defendant in the amended complaint filed by Cardenas. As long as the substantive requirements are met, lack of formal compliance does not violate due process.
Melba continued defending her deceased parents in court proceedings and the court had already acquired jurisdiction over her prior to her parents' deaths. Therefore, a formal substitution of Melba was not necessary even though notices of death were not filed for both her parents. The purpose of informing heirs that they are being brought under the court's jurisdiction was fulfilled because Melba was already a named defendant in the amended complaint filed by Cardenas. As long as the substantive requirements are met, lack of formal compliance does not violate due process.
HEIRS OF AGUILAR In this case, Melba continued to appear and
G.R. No. 191079 l March 02, 2016 participated in the proceedings of the case and Third Division l Justice Perez continued the defense of her deceased parents. Digest by Karen Joy R. Masapol Moreover, the jurisdiction priorly acquired by the Regional Trial Court achieved the purpose of a formal substitution. FACTS:
Elinaida Alcantara obtained a loan from Maximo and
Simplicia Aguilar. This was secured by an agreement of a sale with the right to repurchase. When Alcantara failed to repurchase the property, Melba A. Clavo de Comer, daughter of Spouses Aguilar, granted the extension period.
Subsequently, Joel Cardenas, son of Alcantara,
sought to redeem the property but the Spouses Aguilar refused. This prompted Alcantara to file a complaint for against Spouses Aguilar and Melba A. Clavo de Comer and her husband.
When Alcantara died, she was substituted by
Cardenas who filed an amended complaint. Prior to the filing of the amended complaint, Maximo Aguilar died and his counsel filed a Notice of Death informing the court of his death and that he was substituted by his heirs, Simplicia Aguilar and Melba A. Clavo de Comer. However, a Notice of Death was not filed when Simplicia Aguilar died.
A judgment was rendered in favor of Alcantara. To the
court’s surprise, Cardenas opposed the execution of the said judgment claiming that there was no formal substitution as mandated by Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
In her defense, Melba claims that a Notice of Death
was not necessary upon the death of Simplicia since Melba A. Clavo de Comer was already part of the action after she was named as co-defendant upon the filing of the Amended Complaint.
ISSUE:
Is the formal substitution of Melba still necessary?
RULING: NO
The purpose of substitution is to apprise the heir or the
substitute that he is being brought to the jurisdiction of the court in lieu of the deceased party by operation of law.
The said purpose was not defeated even if no proper
substitution of party was made because Melba A. Clavo de Comer, the heir of the deceased Simplicia P. Aguilar, was already impleaded by Cardenas as a party-defendant to Civil Case No. LP-02-0300 when he filed his Amended Complaint.
The Court also held that if there is compliance with the
substantive aspect even without the compliance with the formal aspect, it is still considered as substantial compliance with the due process.