Case no.

1 Issue
Heirs of Hinog v. Melicor
G.R. No. 140954 April 12, 2005
Topic: Module 2-
Facts
A petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed by the Heirs of
Hinog against the three Orders that were issued by the RTC in
connection to the deceased Bertuldo Hinog’s case with private
respondents Balane.
Bertuldo and Balane’s case was one for recovery of ownership
and possession of a portion a lot owned by the Balane. It was
alleged that Balane had allowed Bertuldo to occupy and use
the vacant portion of their lot for a period of 10 years. Upon
the expiration of the 10 year period, it was alleged that
Bertuldo refused to vacate the premises. Thus, Balane filed a
complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Removal
of Construction and Damages against him. In his Answer he
alleged that the disputed portion of the lot was actually sold to
him by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by one
Tomas Pahac with the knowledge and conformity of Balane.
WON the petitioners and Atty. Petalcorin had legal standing
despite their prior non-compliance with Section 16, Rule 3 of
ROC ( rule on substitution)
Ruling
No. The Supreme Court held that no formal substitution of the
parties was effected within thirty days from date of death of
Bertuldo, as required by Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court. Needless to stress, the purpose behind the rule on
substitution is the protection of the right of every party to due
process. It is to ensure that the deceased party would continue
to be properly represented in the suit through the duly
appointed legal representative of his estate. Non-compliance
with the rule on substitution would render the proceedings and
judgment of the trial court infirm because the court acquires
no jurisdiction over the persons of the legal representatives or
of the heirs on whom the trial and the judgment would be
binding. Thus, proper substitution of heirs must be effected for
the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over their persons and to
obviate any future claim by any heir that he was not apprised
of the litigation against Bertuldo or that he did not authorize
Atty. Petalcorin to represent him.

However, pending trial, Bertuldo died without completing his
evidence. Thus, Atty. Petalcorin as new counsel of Bertuldo
entered his appearance and motioned to expunge the private
respondent’s complaint from the record and nullify all court
proceedings.
Private respondents opposed the motion and argued, among
others, that the ROC provides that the death of the original
defendant requires a substitution of parties before a lawyer
can have legal personality to represent a litigant and that the
motion to expunge does not mention of any specific party
whom he is representing.
The list of names and addresses of the heirs was submitted
sixteen months after the death of Bertuldo and only when the
trial court directed Atty. Petalcorin to comply with the
provisions of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Strictly
speaking therefore, before said compliance, Atty. Petalcorin
had no standing in the court a quo when he filed his pleadings.
Be that as it may, the matter has been duly corrected by the
Order of the trial court dated October 15, 1999.

The trial court resolved to grant the motion to expunge the

case from the records. Private respondents then filed a
manifestation with prayer to reinstate the case.

RTC then issued an Order reinstating the case. Petitioners then

filed for supplemental pleading appending therein the
aforementioned Deed of Absolute sale that the deceased
Bertuldo has allegedly possessed. This was denied by the RTC
on the ground that the Deed of Absolute Sale was new matter
which was never mentioned by Bertuldo in his Answer. RTC
also noted that no formal substitution of the parties was made
because of the counsel’s failure to give the names and
addressed of the legal representatives of Bertuldo, so much so
that the supposed heirs of Bertuldo were not specified in any
pleading in the case.

Petitioners then submitted its rejoinder which was denied by

the RTC in its second Order. Petitioners then motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied by the RTC in its
third Order wherein it noted again that there was no
substitution no parties following the death of Bertuldo.

Thereafter Atty. Petalcorin finally complied and submitted the

names and addressed of the heirs of Bertuldo. Shortly after,
petitioner’s filed the present petition for certiorari and
prohibition.