Donald Gaffney vs.

Butler
Facts:

Petitioner and her husband Anthony Richard Butler approached and invited private
respondent Gaffney to invest in ActiveFun Corporation an entity engaged in the construction,
operation and management of children's play and party facilities. Petitioner was the President of
ActiveFun while her husband was its Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer. Seeming
profitable , private respondent his initial investment in ActiveFun. Petitioner's husband passed
away, thereafter , the proposed investment agreement did not come to materialize. Since then,
respondent Gaffney demanded to return the investment since his husband was died. Only the
initial amount was paid. Nonetheless, Butler did not heed to comply to complete the demand.
Gaffney filed a Complaint against Gina V. Butler for sum of money. Because no full relief can
be had against the Estate/heirs of Anthony Richard Butler under the original Complaint, private
respondent filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Complaint for the purpose of
impleading the estate or the heirs of the late Anthony Richard Butler as additional party-
defendant, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Ad-Cautelam, allegedly not as the defendant
originally named in the complaint but as the purported representative of her late husband,
arguing that the death of her husband did not ipso facto make her the representative of his estate

Issue:

Whether or not the deacease or his estate be named in the case

Ruling:

The deceased or his estate may not be named a defendant in the present case. A deceased
person does not have the capacity to be sued and may not be made a defendant in a case. Under
Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court unequivocally states that "Only natural or
juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.". A deceased
person does not have such legal entity as is necessary to bring action so much so that a motion to
substitute cannot lie and should be denied by the court. Since an estate is not a legal entity, such
an action is a nullity and a motion to amend the party plaintiff will not likewise lie, there being
nothing before the court to amend. Hence, there can be no doubt that a deceased person or his
estate may not be impleaded as defendant in a civil action as they lack legal personality. Thus,
when Anthony died, his legal personality ceased and he could no longer be impleaded as
respondent in the present ordinary civil suit for collection. As such, the complaint against him
should be dismissed on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action
or for failure to state a cause of action.
 Boston Equity vs. Court of appeals

Facts:

Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment against the spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo. Herein respondent filed
an Answer, she filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged,
among others, that her husband and co-defendant, Manuel Toledo (Manuel), is already dead. As
a result, petitioner filed a motion, to require respondent to disclose the heirs of Manuel. In
compliance with the verbal order of the court during the 11 October 1999 hearing of the case,
respondent submitted the required names and addresses of the heirs. Petitioner then filed a
Motion for Substitution, praying that Manuel be substituted by his children as party defendants
which granted by the lower court. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, citing
among others that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel pursuant
to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court. The lower court issued an order denying the
motion to dismiss for having been filed out of time, Moved for reconsideration likewise denied.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. CA granted
the petition of the Respondent and declared that Jurisdiction can be question at any time even
first time on appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not the Respondent is already estopped from questioning the trial courts jurisdiction.

Held:

Yes, objection on jurisdictional grounds which is not waived even if not alleged in a
motion to dismiss or the answer is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The aspect of
jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a
party to a case is not one of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule
9, such defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to
prevent a waiver of the defense. If the objection is not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in
the answer, the objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or the defendant is
deemed waived by virtue of the first sentence of the above-quoted Section 1 of Rule 9 of the
Rules of Court.