Heirs of Vda. De Haberer vs.

CA, Federico Martinez et al

PLAINTIFF: Heirs of Vda De Haberer, legal counsel

DEFENDANT: CA
DATE: May 26, 1981
PONENTE: J. Teehankee
TOPIC: Substitution in case of Death of Principal

TYPE OF CASE: Rule 65, GADALEJ

VENUE:
CAUSE OF ACTION: 11 complaints for recovery of possession
RESOLUTION: Petition, Granted

Facts:

 During the lifetime of Florentina Nuguid Vda. De Haberer, she appealed the decision of the trial court in dismissing her 11
complaints for recovery of possession of a parcel of land registered under her name
 Upon her death her legal counsel filed 3 motions for the suspension of the running period for filing appellant’s brief
o June 29, 1977 – unacted
o September 18, 1975 – still asking for suspension
o November 24, 1975 – RTC denied
 Because the appellant had already been given 195 days to file her brief
 That the appellant had no right to assume that such extension will be granted as a matter of right

Issue: W/N the respondent court is correct in dismissing the case and not granting the substitution, YES

Ruling:

The respondent court is not correct in following the rule set in Section 17, Rule 3 ROC. The should have done the following:
 Required the appearance of the legal representative
 NOT to dismiss the appeal of the deceased who had yet to be substituted in the pending appeal

The legal counsel of the appellant was right as to their actions.

In the case at bar, they properly informed the respondent court of the death of the appellant and sought suspension of the
proceedings and of the period for the filing of the appellant’s brief pending the appointment of the executor of the deceased’s estate
in the proper probate proceedings filed with the CFI of QC.

Section 17, Rule 3 of ROC sets the rule on substitution of parties in case of death of any of the parties. Under the Rule, it is the
court called upon, after notice of a party’s death and the claim is not thereby extinguished, to order upon the proper notice the legal
representative of the deceased to appear within the period of 30days or such time as it may grant. Since no administrator of the
estate of the deceased appellant have been appointed as the same was still pending determination in the CFI of QC.
 The motion of the deceased’s counsel for the suspension of the running of the period was well taken
 Under the Rule, it should have set a period for the substitution of the deceased party with her legal representative of heirs
failing, which the court is called upon to order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal representative of
the deceased’s estate, and such representative shall then “immediately appear and on behalf of the interest of the
deceased.”
Sarsaba vs. Vda. De Te represented by her Attorney-in-fact Faustino Castañeda

PLAINTIFF: Atty. Rogelio Sarsaba

DEFENDANT: Vda. De Te Atty in fact Faustino Castaneda
DATE: July 30, 2009
PONENTE: J. Peralta
TOPIC: Effect of Death

TYPE OF CASE: Rule 45

VENUE:
CAUSE OF ACTION: Complaint for Recovery of Vehicle with damages
RESOLUTION:

FACTS:
1. Feb. 14, 1995: a Decision was rendered in the NLRC finding Sereno to have been illegally dismissed and ordering Gasing
(truck operator) to pay him P43k.
2. After the Writ of Execution was returned unsatisfied, Labor Arbiter Sancho issued an Alias Writ, directing Sherriff Lavarez
(the Sheriff) of the NLRC to satisfy the judgment award.
3. The Sheriff, accompanied by Sereno and his counsel, Petitioner Atty. Sarsaba, levied a Fuso Truck, which at the time was
in the possession of Gasing.
a. The truck was sold at public auction with Sereno as highest bidder.
4. Respondent Fe Vde. De Te (Te) filed with the RTC a Complaint for recovery of motor vehicle against Sereno, the Sheriff,
and the NLRC of Davao
a. She alleged that she is the wife of the late Pedro Te, the registered owner of the truck, that Gasing merely
rented the truck from her, that the Sheriff erroneously assumed that Gasing owned the truck, and that since
neither she nor her husband were parties to the labor case between Sereno and Gasing, she should not have to
bear the loss.
5. Atty. Sarsaba filed an MTD. The NLRC also filed a MTD. The Sheriff, however, filed an Answer.
6. January 21, 2000: The RTC denied Atty. Sarsaba’s MTD.
7. Atty. Sarsaba (counsel for Sereno) denied the material allegations in the complaint.
a. That there was no showing that the heirs have filed intestate proceedings (for the estate of Pedro Te), or that Te
was authorized by her co-heirs to file the case, or that the truck was already sold to Gasing by one Matias (who
bought it from Sps. Te).
8. The Sheriff filed a Motion for Inhibition, which was opposed by Te.
9. October 13, 2000: RTC Branch 18 issued an Order of inhibition and directed the transfer of the records to Branch 19.
10. RTC Branch 19 returned the records to Branch 18 in view of the appointment of a new judge in place of Judge Escovilla
(Branch 18’s original judge). Yet, Branch 19 issued another Order retaining the case in said branch.
11. May 19, 2003: The RTC denied the MTD filed by the NLRC and set Pre-trial Conference.
12. October 17, 2005: Petitioner Atty. Sarsaba filed an Omnibus MTD the Case.
13. April 12, 2005: Respondent Vda. De Te died.
a. Through her lawyer, Respondent filed an Opposition, contending that failure to serve summons upon Sereno
(on account of his death) is not a ground for dismissing the complaint because the other defendants have
already submitted their respective responsive pleadings.
b. Also claimed that Respondent Vda. De Te’s death did not render functus officio her right to sue since
her atty-in-fact, Castaeda, had long testified on the complaint on March 13, 1998 for an on her behalf
and submitted documentary exhibits in support of the complaint.
14. March 22, 2006: The RTC issued the assailed Order, denying Atty. Sarsaba’s motion (SEE Fact 12).
15. Atty. Sarsaba filed an MR with Motion for Inhibition.
a. Claimed that the judge was biased (that her husband was the defendant in a petition for judicial recognition of
which he was the counsel).
16. Judge Sarno-Davin granted it and ordered the case to be re-raffled to Branch 18.
17. October 16, 2006: RTC Branch 18 denied Atty. Sarsaba’s MR (SEE Fact 15).
18. Hence, Atty. Sarsaba directly sought recourse from the SC (pure questions of law).

ISSUE: W/N failure to serve summons on Sereno on account of his death is a ground for dismissal of the complaint (SEE Fact
13.a.) – NO.

*NOTE: BOTH Sereno and Te died at some point.

RULING: Petition DENIED.

RATIO:
CivPro Issue:
1. The RTC Order denying Atty. Sarsaba’s Omnibus MTD (SEE Fact 14) is not appealable even on pure
questions of law since is it interlocutory (since an interlocutory order is not appealable). Sarsaba should have
proceeded with the trial of the case, and should the RTC eventually render an unfavourable verdict, he
should assail the Order as part of an appeal that may be taken from the final judgment to be rendered in this
case.
2. Sarsaba raises the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the person of Sereno, not in his MTD or in his Answer but
only in his Omnibus MTD. Having failed to invoke this ground at the proper time, that is, in a MTD, he cannot
 raise it now for the first time on appeal.
3. Also, the court’s failure to acquire jurisdiction over one’s person is a defense, which is personal to the person
claiming it. Obviously, it is now impossible for Sereno to invoke the same in view of his death.
4. Failure to serve summons on Sereno’s person will not be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint against
the other defendants, considering that they have been served with copies of the summons and complaints
and have long submitted their respective responsive pleadings.
5. Hence, only the case against Sereneo will be dismissed.
Torres vs. Rodellas
GR 117836

PLAINTIFF: Edwino Torres (deceased) represented and substituted by Alfonso Torres III and Fatima Torres (son and
daughter)
DEFENDANT: Balligi Rodellas
DATE: September 4, 2009
PONENTE: J. Chico-Nazario
TOPIC:

TYPE OF CASE: Rule 45

VENUE:
CAUSE OF ACTION:
RESOLUTION:

Facts:

 Balligi, and her family began occupying a 111sqm land located in Occidental Mindoro in 1967 – they built a residential
house
o Obtained a Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) from the DENR for the property.
o She left for Saudi to work while her family stayed in Manila
o House was left in possession of her relatives
 Edwino and his family occupied the house
o Claimed that Balligi sold the house and lot to him for 60k
o Evidenced by affidavit of Relinquishment/Sale of Right
o Filed his own name for the subject property
 In 1992, Balligi’s son Eugenio, returned to Occidental Mindoro upon which he learned that Edwino claimed ownership of
the property
o Allegedly representing Balligi
 Filed before the CENRO a protest against Edwino’s MSA before the DENR
 That the document was forged – dismissed because
 Eugenio had no SPA - no personality to represent Balligi
 Balligi returned from Saudi – filed another protest – dismissed because if res judicata
o She filed an appeal to the OP
 Declared that res judicata does not apply because the judgement of the DENR did not touch the
merits of the case
 Declared for the revocation of Edwino’s MSA – ordered to vacate
 Atty. Restor, Edwino’s counsel received the copy of the decision of the OP. He filed a MR and at the same time
manifested that his client passed away without intimating the time of death
 OP denied MR because it was filed out of time and for lack of personality
o Edwino’s death extinguished his agency relationship with Atty. Restor. He had no authority to continue to act on
Edwino’s behalf
o MR was filed beyond the 15day reglementary period
 Alfonso and Fatima, heirs of the deceased that the dismissal by the OP is based on the misapplication of Section 16, Rule
3
o Failure to comply to the said procedural rule should not invalidate the proceedings
o That Edwino’s death did not extinguish his civil personality
o Right to due process was violated if their MR would be brushed aside

Issue: W/N Atty. Restor retained his legal personality even after the death of his client, YES

Ruling:

The Court ruled that there has been a misapplication of Section 16, Rule 3 ROC

In the case at bar, both parties accuse the other of unlawfully depriving them of their respective rights to acquire the subject
property, together with the house built thereon, by means of an MSA grant from the State. Evidently, what are primarily and
principally affected herein are the property and property rights of the parties, and any injuries to their persons (i.e., damages) are
only incidental. Such property and property rights survived Edwinos death and may pass on by succession to his heirs. Therefore,
the heirs must be allowed to continue any litigation to protect said property or property rights and to substitute themselves for the
deceased party in accordance with appropriate rules.

According to Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, a counsel, within 30 days from his clients death, is duty-bound to
inform the court of such fact, and to submit the name/s and address/es of the deceased clients legal representative/s. Thereafter,
the court shall order, forthwith, the appearance of and substitution by the deceased partys legal representative/s within another
period of 30 days from notice.

With no exact date of Edwinos death, we have no basis for determining whether Atty. Restor was able to inform the Office of the
President of such fact within the requisite period of 30 days. Nevertheless, even assuming that Atty. Restor belatedly notified the
Office of the President of Edwinos death, Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court only provided that, in case of failure of
the counsel to comply with his duty as stated in the first paragraph thereof, it would be a ground for disciplinary action against said
counsel, not that he/she would already be without personality to appear as counsel in the proceedings for the benefit of his/her client
or the latters heirs.

We emphasize that the purpose behind Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Procedure is the protection of the right to due
process of every party to a litigation who may be affected by the intervening death. The deceased litigant is himself or herself
protected, as he/she continues to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate.
The spirit behind the general rule requiring a formal substitution of heirs is not really because substitution of heirs is a jurisdictional
requirement, but because non-compliance therewith results in the undeniable violation of the right to due process of those who,
though not duly notified of the proceedings, are substantially affected by the decision rendered therein.