Ventura v. Militante | G.R No. 63145 | October 5, 1999 | Puno, J.

Nature: Petition for Certiorari

Petitioners: Sulpicia Ventura
Respondents: Hon. Francis Militante (RTC Judge); John Uy
TOPIC: Parties to a civil action > Personality to sue; Estate of a decedent
SUMMARY: Uy filed a complaint for collection of money against the estate of Ngo after the latter’s death. His wife
Ventura moved to dismiss for lack of capacity of the estate to be a party in a civil complaint. The RTC ordered an
amendment, naming Ventura as party defendant instead. The SC held that the estate has no capacity to be sued, and
being a nullity, the amendment is not allowed. Court GRANTED Ventura’s petition and Uy’s complaint was DISMISSED.
Only natural or judicial persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Neither a dead person
nor his estate may be a party in a court action.

Procedural history:
1. Complaint by Uy against Estate of Ngo
2. Motion to dismiss by Ventura
3. Judge Militante ordered amendment
4. Complaint by Uy against Ventura
5. Judge Militante held Ventura liable for the debts of deceased Ngo to Uy
6. Petition for Certiorari by Ventura assailing the order of Judge Militante

FACTS
 Private Respondent John Uy filed a complaint for sum of money against “Estate of Carlos Ngo [deceased], as
represented by [Petitioner] Sulpicia Ventura [wife]”
o Debt was obtained during the life time of Ngo, allegedly for the benefit of his family, and remains
unpaid.
o Ventura moved to dismiss on the ground that the estate of Ngo has no legal capacity.
o Public Respondent Judge Militante ordered an amendment of the complaint to include the proper
party.
 The amended complaint is now against “Sulpicia Ventura”, alleging that “During the lifetime of Carlos Ngo he
and his wife, the defendant herein are indebted with the plaintiff”
o Ventura: his debt does not survive Ngo. Upon his death, the conjugal partnership of gains is
terminated. Debts and charges against the conjugal partnership of gains may only be paid after an
inventory is made in the appropriate testate or intestate proceeding.
o Uy: defendant in his amended complaint was now petitioner and that she was not deceased.
o RTC: since Ngo is now dead that will not preclude Uy from filing a case against the living defendant,
Sulpicia Ventura.

ISSUE: WON the amended complaint can stand against Ventura? – NO

 Only natural or judicial persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. In order to maintain
an action, the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence (they must be a person in law and possessed of a legal
entity) and no suit can be lawfully prosecuted save in the name of such person.
 It is incumbent upon a plaintiff to name the proper party defendant, who must also have legal capacity to
be sued.
 In a suit or proceeding in personam of an adversary character, the court can acquire no jurisdiction for the
purpose of trial or judgment until a party defendant who actually or legally exists and is legally capable of being
sued, is brought before it.
 The question of the legal personality of a party defendant is a question of substance going to the
jurisdiction of the court and not one of procedure.
 Neither a dead person nor his estate may be a party in a court action. A deceased person does not have such
legal entity.
 Given that the estate has no legal personality to be sued, the first complaint is a nullity. The amendment could
therefore not be made, as there is nothing to amend in the first place.
  RTC/Judge Militante never acquired jurisdiction over the first complaint. It never had the jurisdiction to
order the its amendment.
 The proper recourse for Uy is to apply in court for letters of administration in his capacity as a principal creditor
of the deceased Carlos Ngo if after thirty (30) days from his death, petitioner failed to apply for administration or
request that administration be granted to some other person.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint filed by private
respondent is HEREBY DISMISSED.