Civil Procedure Case Digest AY 13-14

CASE # 6: Sarsaba vs. Vda dela Torre 594 SCRA 410

(July 30, 2009,  G.R. No. 175910)
TOPIC: Parties to civil actions: Death of party- consequences of death of party
PONENTE: PERALTA, J

FACTS:
1. On February 14, 1995, a Decision was rendered in NLRC, in the case of Patricio Sereno v. Teodoro Gasing/Truck
Operator finding Sereno to have been illegally dismissed and ordering Gasing to pay him his monetary claims.
2. Labor Arbiter Sancho issued an Alias Writ of Execution directing Sheriff Lavarez of the NLRC to satisfy the
judgment award. Lavarez, accompanied by Sereno and his counsel, ATTY. Sarsaba levied a truck in possession of
Gasing. Truck was sold to Sereno being the highest bidder.
3. Fe Vda. De Te represented by her counsel Atty. Castañeda filed with the RTC for recovery of the truck
4. FE alleged that the registered owner of the truck was her late husband
a. She had the official receipt and Cert of registration
b. Gasing rented the truck from her
c. Lavarez erroneously assumed Gasing owned the truck because it was in his possession
d. She should not be made to answer the judgment award because she nor her late husband was not a
party to the labor case
5. Sarsaba filed a motion to dismiss
a. FE had not legal personality to sue because she had no real interest over the property subject of the
complaint
b. Allegations do not state a cause of action
c. No sufficient cause of action against him
d. There was also no affidavit of merit and bond that would entitle the delivery of the truck pendent lite

6. Jan 21, 2000, RTC issued an order denying Sarsaba’s MTD for lack of merit Sarsaba denied the material
allegations in the complaint. He stated that the respondent had no legal personality to sue. Truck was actually
sold by JESUS MATIAS, who in turn bought the truck from the Sps. Te. Therefore, Gasing was the lawful owner.
7. April 12, 2005, FE TE died.
8. FE through her lawyer filed an opposition contending that the failure to serve summons to Sereno is not a
ground for dismissing the complaint because respective pleadings were already given (NOTE THAT THIS CASE
INVOLVES PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION). Fe' death did not render functus officio her right to sue, since her lawyer
Castañeda has already testified in her behalf.
9. March 2006 RTC denied Sarsaba’s motion. He then filed a MR with motion for inhibition claiming that: a) the
judge that ordered the decision was biased and partial; b) The judge should have inhibited herself from trying the
case since her husband is a defendant in a petition for judicial recognition of which Sarsaba was the counsel.
Case was re-raffled. OCT 2006, Sarsaba’s MR was denied for lack of merit.
10. Sarsaba appealed.

ISSUE:
1. WON the court has jurisdiction over the case considering that one of the defendants (SERENO) was not served
summons since he passed away?
2. WON her counsel, Castañeda be discharged because he no longer has legal personality to sue in behalf of FE?
3. What is the legal effect of FE’s death during the pendency of the case?
 Civil Procedure Case Digest AY 13-14

HELD:
1. NO. Jurisdiction with respect to Sereno
2. NO.

RATIO:
1. Since Sereno died before summons was served, the RTC should have dismissed the complaint against
defendants, and it should have been filed against Sereno’s estate.
The Court states that the MTD based on the court not acquiring jurisdiction of the person cannot be raised on
appeal FOR THE FIRST TIME.
But then the Court also states that they cannot counter this argument because the RTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over Sereno. So technically, the dismissal is valid only to SERENO and not the other defendants
(Sarsaba, petitioner in this case) – because they were properly served summons. FAILURE to effect summons to
SERENO dies not render the action DISMISSIBLE

SUBSITUTION OF THE DECEASED

2. The counsel is required to inform the court of the death of his client, as well as give the name and address of the
latter’s legal representative
3. The only actions that survives and may be filed against the decedents representatives are
a. Actions to recover real or personal property/ or an interest therein
b. Actions to enforce liens
c. Actions to recover damages for an inquiry to a person/property
4. The rule on substitution is governed by S 16, Rule 3. It is not a matter of jurisdiction but DUE PROCESS
a. Designed to ensure that the deceased would be properly represented
b. Non-compliance would result to a denial of due process
5. Castañeda failed to make any manifestation before the RTC of Fe’s death.
a. He did not show proof that he has been retained by FE’s legal representative or any of her heirs
b. THIS FAILURE would not invalidate all proceedings in the RTC.
c. The trial court's jurisdiction over the case subsists despite the death of the party.
6. Sarsaba raised that the SPA executed in favor of Castañeda has already expired, rule on agency
a. Agency is extinguished by death of the principal
b. This is correct but it is not enough to cause the dismissal of the complaint because, THE ACTION FOR
RECOVERY OF PROPERTY is one of the exceptions that survives, and therefore, such action is not
extinguished by the death of a party.
7. It definitely didn’t eradicate Castaneda’s right to prosecute the case
a. When the case was filed, FE was still alive
b. Records reveal that the Attorney-in-fact has testified long before in behalf of the said plaintiff and more
particularly during the state when the plaintiff was vehemently opposing the dismissal of the
complainant
c. He offered documentary evidence, and as such, ONCE THE COURT ACQUIRES JURISDICTION IT ATTACHES
UNTIL THE CASE IS DECIDED.
d. THE PROPER REMEDY is the substitution of Heirs, and not the dismissal of this case 
In fine, We hold that the petition should be denied as the RTC Order is interlocutory; hence, not a proper subject of an
appeal before the Court.   In the same breath, We also hold that, if the petition is to be treated as a petition
for certiorari as a relaxation of the judicial hierarchy of courts, the same is also dismissible for being substantially
insufficient to warrant the Court the nullification of the Order of the RTC. PETITION DISMISSED
Civil Procedure Case Digest AY 13-14