Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petitioners Vs Vs Respondent George Erwin M. Garcia Nicolas P. Lapena, JR
Petitioners Vs Vs Respondent George Erwin M. Garcia Nicolas P. Lapena, JR
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS; WHEN A
PARTY TO A PENDING ACTION DIES AND THE CLAIM IS NOT EXTINGUISHED,
SUBSTITUTION OF THE DECEASED IS REQUIRED; PURPOSE. — When a party to a pending
action dies and the claim is not extinguished, the Rules of Court require a substitution of
the deceased. The procedure is speci cally governed by Section 16 of Rule 3, . . . . The rule
on the substitution of parties was crafted to protect every party's right to due process.
The estate of the deceased party will continue to be properly represented in the suit
through the duly appointed legal representative. Moreover, no adjudication can be made
against the successor of the deceased if the fundamental right to a day in court is denied.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A FORMAL SUBSTITUTION BY HEIRS IS NOT NECESSARY
WHEN THEY THEMSELVES VOLUNTARILY APPEAR, PARTICIPATE IN THE CASE, AND
PRESENT EVIDENCE IN DEFENSE OF THE DECEASED. — The Court has nulli ed not only
trial proceedings conducted without the appearance of the legal representatives of the
deceased, but also the resulting judgments. In those instances, the courts acquired no
jurisdiction over the persons of the legal representatives or the heirs upon whom no
judgment was binding. This general rule notwithstanding, a formal substitution by heirs is
not necessary when they themselves voluntarily appear, participate in the case, and
present evidence in defense of the deceased. These actions negate any claim that the right
to due process was violated.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RULE ON SUBSTITUTION BY HEIRS IS NOT A MATTER OF
JURISDICTION BUT A REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS. — Strictly speaking, the rule on
the substitution by heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process.
Thus, when due process is not violated, as when the right of the representative or heir is
recognized and protected, noncompliance or belated formal compliance with the Rules
cannot affect the validity of a promulgated decision. Mere failure to substitute for a
deceased plaintiff is not a su cient ground to nullify a trial court's decision. The alleging
party must prove that there was an undeniable violation of due process.
4. ID.; ID.; ACTIONS; FORUM SHOPPING; DEFINED. — Forum shopping is the
institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the
other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping may be resorted to by a
party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an
attempt to seek a favorable opinion in another, other than by an appeal or a special civil
action for certiorari.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN , J : p
On the other hand, the trial court's affirmed Decision disposed as follows:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
"a) declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. 'D') and 'Kasunduan'
(Exhibit B), to be a sale with right of repurchase;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
"b) ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendants the sum of P9,000.00
by way of repurchasing the land in question;
"c) ordering the defendants to execute a deed of reconveyance of said
land in favor of the plaintiff after the latter has paid them the
amount of P9,000.00 to repurchase the land in question;
The Facts
The case originated from a Complaint for the recovery of possession and
ownership, the cancellation of title, and damages, led by Pedro Joaquin against
petitioners in the Regional Trial Court of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. 6 Respondent
alleged that he had obtained a loan from them in the amount of P9,000 on June 29, 1974,
payable after ve (5) years; that is, on June 29, 1979. To secure the payment of the
obligation, he supposedly executed a Deed of Sale in favor of petitioners. The Deed was for
a parcel of land in Pinagpanaan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, covered by TCT No. T-111802. The
parties also executed another document entitled "Kasunduan." 7
Respondent claimed that the Kasunduan showed the Deed of Sale to be actually an
equitable mortgage. 8 Spouses De la Cruz contended that this document was merely an
accommodation to allow the repurchase of the property until June 29, 1979, a right that he
failed to exercise. 9
On April 23, 1990, the RTC issued a Decision in his favor. The trial court declared that
the parties had entered into a sale with a right of repurchase. 1 0 It further held that
respondent had made a valid tender of payment on two separate occasions to exercise his
right of repurchase. 1 1 Accordingly, petitioners were required to reconvey the property
upon his payment. 1 2
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Sustaining the trial court, the CA noted that petitioners had given respondent the
right to repurchase the property within ve (5) years from the date of the sale or until June
29, 1979. Accordingly, the parties executed the Kasunduan to express the terms and
conditions of their actual agreement. 1 3 The appellate court also found no reason to
overturn the nding that respondent had validly exercised his right to repurchase the land.
14
Succinctly, the issues are whether the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case upon
the death of Pedro Joaquin, and whether respondent was guilty of forum shopping. 1 8
The Court's Ruling
The Petition has no merit.
First Issue:
Jurisdiction
Petitioners assert that the RTC's Decision was invalid for lack of jurisdiction. 1 9 They
claim that respondent died during the pendency of the case. There being no substitution
by the heirs, the trial court allegedly lacked jurisdiction over the litigation. 2 0
Rule on Substitution
When a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not extinguished, 2 1 the Rules
of Court require a substitution of the deceased. The procedure is speci cally governed by
Section 16 of Rule 3, which reads thus:
"Section 16. Death of a party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a party to a
pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty
of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the
fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for
disciplinary action.
"The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the
deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and
the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
"If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party,
or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the speci ed period, the court
may order the opposing party, within a speci ed time, to procure the appointment
of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased, and the latter shall
immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered
as costs."
The rule on the substitution of parties was crafted to protect every party's right to
due process. 2 2 The estate of the deceased party will continue to be properly represented
in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative. 2 3 Moreover, no adjudication
can be made against the successor of the deceased if the fundamental right to a day in
court is denied. 2 4 HcTDSA
Substitution in
the Instant Case
The records of the present case contain a "Motion for Substitution of Party Plaintiff"
dated February 15, 2002, filed before the CA. The prayer states as follows:
"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Heirs of the deceased
plaintiff-appellee as represented by his daughter Lourdes dela Cruz be substituted
as party-plaintiff for the said Pedro Joaquin.
"It is further prayed that henceforth the undersigned counsel 3 2 for the heirs
of Pedro Joaquin be furnished with copies of notices, orders, resolutions and
other pleadings at its address below."
Evidently, the heirs of Pedro Joaquin voluntary appeared and participated in the
case. We stress that the appellate court had ordered 3 3 his legal representatives to appear
and substitute for him. The substitution even on appeal had been ordered correctly. In all
proceedings, the legal representatives must appear to protect the interests of the
deceased. 3 4 After the rendition of judgment, further proceedings may be held, such as a
motion for reconsideration or a new trial, an appeal, or an execution. 3 5
The elements of res judicata are as follows: (1) the former judgment or order must
be nal; (2) it must have been rendered on the merits of the controversy; (3) the court that
rendered it must have had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4)
there must have been — between the rst and the second actions — an identity of parties,
subject matter and cause of action. 4 5
Failure to Support Allegation
The onus of proving allegations rests upon the party raising them. 4 6 As to the
matter of forum shopping and res judicata, petitioners have failed to provide this Court
with relevant and clear speci cations that would show the presence of an identity of
parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the present and the earlier suits. They
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
have also failed to show whether the other case was decided on the merits. Instead, they
have made only bare assertions involving its existence without reference to its facts. In
other words, they have alleged conclusions of law without stating any factual or legal
basis. Mere mention of other civil cases without showing the identity of rights asserted
and reliefs sought is not enough basis to claim that respondent is guilty of forum
shopping, or that res judicata exists. 4 7
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. ASETHC
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Carpio Morales and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-14.
2. Id., pp. 19-27. Twelfth Division. Penned by Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with the
concurrence of Justices Romeo A. Brawner (Division chair and now CA presiding justice)
and Arturo D. Brion (member).
3. Id., pp. 28-29.
4. CA Decision, p. 8; rollo, p. 26.
5. Rollo, pp. 19-20.
6. Assailed Decision, p. 2; rollo, p. 20.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Id., p. 3; rollo, p. 21.
10. Id., p. 1; rollo, p. 20.
11. Id., p. 7; rollo, p. 25.
12. Id., p. 1; rollo, p. 20.
13. Id., p. 7; rollo, p. 25.
14. Ibid.
15. Assailed Resolution, p. 2; rollo, p. 29.
16. The case was deemed submitted for decision on December 10, 2004, upon this Court's
receipt of the respective Memoranda of petitioners and respondent. Petitioners'
Memorandum was signed by Atty. George Erwin M. Garcia; respondent's Memorandum,
by Attys. Nicolas P. Lapeña Jr. and Gilbert F. Ordoña.
17. Petition, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 8-9. Petitioners erred in phrasing the assignment of errors,
since the CA should not be impleaded as a respondent in a Petition for Review on
Certiorari. §4, Rule 45, Rules of Court.
18. Petition, p. 5; rollo, p. 7.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
This Court will not address the allegations that were not raised in the Petition, but only
in petitioners' Memorandum. In the Court's Resolution dated October 13, 2004, the
parties were directed to submit their respective Memoranda without raising new issues.
In their Memorandum, petitioners added paragraphs alleging that respondent had failed
to make a valid tender of payment and abandoned their right to the repurchase
agreement. These are factual issues that are not proper in a Petition for Review on
Certiorari. (§1, Rule 45, Rules of Court) Moreover, it would be against the fundamental
right to due process if these allegations are considered without hearing private
respondent and the CA on this matter. A Petition for review essentially charges the lower
court with "reversible errors." How can there be any such mistakes with respect to a
matter not raised and taken up in the assailed Decision?
25. Brioso v. Rili-Mariano, 444 Phil. 625, 636, January 31, 2003; Lawas v. Court of Appeals,
230 Phil. 261, 268, December 12, 1986; The Heirs of the Late F. Nuguid Vda. de Haberer
v. Court of Appeals, 192 Phil. 61, 70, May 26, 1981; Vda. de Dela Cruz v. Court of
Appeals, 88 SCRA 695, 701, February 28, 1979; Ferreria et al. v. Vda. de Gonzales et al.,
104 Phil. 143, 149, July 17, 1958.
26. Ibid. See also Heirs of Hinog, supra; Vda. de Salazar v. Court of Appeals, supra.
27. Brioso v. Rili-Mariano, supra, p. 637; Vda. de Salazar v. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 377.
28. 166 SCRA 219, October 4, 1988.
29. Id., p. 226.
30. Id., p. 227.
31. Brioso v. Rili-Mariano, ibid.; Torres Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra; Vda. de Salazar v.
Court of Appeals, id., p. 380.
32. Law Firm of Lapeña & Associates, Rm. 208 Golden Crescent Mansion, 90 Alvero St.,
Loyola Heights, Quezon City, signed by Nicolas P. Lapeña Jr., the same counsel in the
present case appearing for respondent.
33. March 9, 2004 Resolution, p. 2; rollo, p. 29.
44. Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna, ibid.; Oropeza Marketing Corp. v.
Allied Banking Corp., ibid.; Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 628, 649, November 19,
1999.
45. Taganas v. Emuslan, supra; Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna, ibid.;
Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, id., p. 650; Deang v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 154 SCRA
250, 254, September 24, 1987.