Cardenas vs The Heirs of Spouses Aguilar

GR No. 191079 | March 2, 2016

FACTS:

After obtaining a loan from Sps. Aguilar, Elinaida Alcantara executed an agreement of Sale with
a Right to Repurchase over a parcel of land. Alcantara failed to repurchase and sought for
extension which was granted.

Later, the son of Alcantara offered to pay for the entire amount of the loan including interest but
it was refused by the Sps. Aguilar. This prompted him to file a Reformation of Instrument and
Specific Performance against the Spouses Aguilar, their daughter and her husband, and
Antonio Malinao, in his capacity as Register of Deeds of Las Piñas City, that the instrument
denominated as  Venta con Pacto de Retro  be declared as equitable mortgage and to direct
defendants to accept her offer to pay the loan and to release the mortgage constituted on the
subject property.

Alcantara passed away and was substituted by Cardenas in an Amended Complaint. Before
filing an Amended Complaint, the counsel for the Spouses Aguilar also manifested that
Maximo V. Aguilar likewise passed away by filing a Notice of Death with the trial court and
serving a copy thereof on the opposing party.

The RTC rendered a  Decision in favor of the plaintiffs  and declared that the contract entered
into by the parties is equitable mortgage and not a sale with a right to repurchase.

Defendants filed a Motion for Execution of the RTC Decision which was surprisingly opposed
by the plaintiff on the ground that the original defendants (the Spouses Aguilar) were already
dead and no proper substitution of the parties was effected.

The RTC, in an Order dated 13 October 2009, directed the issuance of the Writ of Execution.

ISSUE:


WHETHER OR NOT A MOTION FOR EXECUTION CAN BE FILED BY A COUNSEL WHEN THE
JUDGMENT OBLIGEES WERE ALREADY DEAD AND NEITHER WAS THERE AN EXECUTOR
OR ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED BY THE COURT NOR AN HEIR SUBSTITUTED AS A
PARTY TO THE CASE TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNSEL TO MOVE FOR THE EXECUTION OF
THE JUDGMENT.

RULING:

YES.

Section 16.  Death of 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 his 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.



The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.



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 specified period, the court may order the opposing party,
within a specified 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.

In the case at bar, we find that no right to procedural due process was violated when the
counsel for the respondents failed to notify the court of the fact of death of Simplicia P. Aguilar
and even if no formal substitution of parties was effected after the such death. As can be
gleaned above, the rationale behind the rule on 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 petitioner as a party-defendant to Civil Case No. LP-02-0300 when
the latter filed his Amended Complaint. For sure, petitioner is very much aware that despite the
passing of the Spouses Aguilar, the case would still continue because de Comer, on her own
behalf and as the legal representative of her deceased parents, possessed the authority to
pursue the case to its end.