Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 274 views

    Lawas vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Vloudy Mia Serrano Pangilinan
    The Supreme Court ruled the proceedings conducted by the trial court after the death of the defendant were invalid for the following reasons: 1) Under the rules of civil procedure, the court is required to order the legal representative of the deceased party to appear and be substituted within 30 days of their death. This did not occur. 2) Priority is given to the legal representative (executor or administrator) of the estate to be substituted. However, the court did not wait for the petitioner, who was appointed administratrix of the estate, to substitute the deceased defendant. 3) As no substitution of the deceased defendant was made, the trial and judgment rendered against the "heirs" were null and void as the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lawas vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Vloudy Mia Serrano Pangilinan
    274 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled the proceedings conducted by the trial court after the death of the defendant were invalid for the following reasons: 1) Under the rules of civil procedure, the court is required to order the legal representative of the deceased party to appear and be substituted within 30 days of their death. This did not occur. 2) Priority is given to the legal representative (executor or administrator) of the estate to be substituted. However, the court did not wait for the petitioner, who was appointed administratrix of the estate, to substitute the deceased defendant. 3) As no substitution of the deceased defendant was made, the trial and judgment rendered against the "heirs" were null and void as the

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled the proceedings conducted by the trial court after the death of the defendant were invalid for the following reasons: 1) Under the rules of civil procedure, the court is required to order the legal representative of the deceased party to appear and be substituted within 30 days of their death. This did not occur. 2) Priority is given to the legal representative (executor or administrator) of the estate to be substituted. However, the court did not wait for the petitioner, who was appointed administratrix of the estate, to substitute the deceased defendant. 3) As no substitution of the deceased defendant was made, the trial and judgment rendered against the "heirs" were null and void as the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    274 views2 pages

    Lawas vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Vloudy Mia Serrano Pangilinan
    The Supreme Court ruled the proceedings conducted by the trial court after the death of the defendant were invalid for the following reasons: 1) Under the rules of civil procedure, the court is required to order the legal representative of the deceased party to appear and be substituted within 30 days of their death. This did not occur. 2) Priority is given to the legal representative (executor or administrator) of the estate to be substituted. However, the court did not wait for the petitioner, who was appointed administratrix of the estate, to substitute the deceased defendant. 3) As no substitution of the deceased defendant was made, the trial and judgment rendered against the "heirs" were null and void as the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Lawas vs.

    CA

    Facts:

    Private respondent Pacifico Pelaez filed a Complaint against petitioner's father, Pedro Sepulveda, for
    ownership and partition of certain parcels of land. Defendant Pedro Sepulveda filed his Answer resisting the
    claim and raising the special defenses. During the presentation of evidence for the plaintiff, the defendant
    died. The counsels for the deceased defendant then filed a notice of death wherein were enumerated the
    thirteen children and surviving spouse of the deceased. Petitioner filed a petition for letters of administration
    and she was appointed judicial administratrix of the estate of her late father.

    At the hearing of the case former counsels (Attys. Antigua and Branzuela) for the deceased
    defendant, manifested in open court that with the death of their client, their contract with him was also
    terminated and none of the thirteen children nor the surviving spouse had renewed the contract.
    Notwithstanding said manifestation, the respondent trial judge set the case for hearing and judgement was
    thereafter rendered against the heirs of the deceased defendant.

    On February 19, 1976, ten of the children of the deceased defendant, who apparently did not know
    that a decision had already been rendered, filed an Answer in-substitution of the deceased defendant through
    their counsel Atty. Jesus Yray. This was denied admission by the respondent trial judge for being already
    moot and academic because of the earlier decision.

    On March 9, 1976, the widow and two other children of the deceased defendant, through their
    counsel Atty. Delfin Quijano, filed a motion for substitution and for reconsideration of the decision dated
    January 28, 1976. On April 7, 1976, the respondent trial judge issued an order setting aside his decision and
    setting the case in the calendar for cross-examination of the plaintiff, Pacifico Pelaez, with a proviso that said
    order was applicable only to the three heirs who had filed the motion. On July 14, 1976, the respondent trial
    judge lifted the order setting aside his decision, despite the verbal petition for postponement of the hearing
    made by one of the three heirs on the ground of the absence of their counsel.

    On January 28, 1976, the respondent trial judge rendered a decision against the heirs of the deceased
    defendant. Petitioner, who had been appointed judicial administratrix of the estate, filed a motion to
    intervene and/or substitute the deceased defendant which was denied by the respondent trial judge.
    Petitioner then filed a special civil action of certiorari with the Court of Appeals which was dismissed. Hence,
    this appeal.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the proceedings conducted by the court after the death of herein defendant is
    valid

    Ruling:

    NO. The proceedings conducted by the court after the death of herein defendant is not valid.

    Section 17 of Rule 3 provides as follows:

    Death of party. After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shag order, upon
    proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased,
    within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be granted. If the legal representative fails to
    appear within said time, the court may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal
    representative of the deceased within a time to be specified by the court, and the representative shall
    immediately appear for and on behalf of the interest of the deceased. The court charges involved in
    procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. The heirs of the
    de ceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
    executor or administrator and the court may appoint guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

    Respondent court gravely erred in not following the Rule and requiring the appearance of the legal
    representative of the deceased and instead dismissing the appeal of the deceased who yet had to be
    substituted in the pending appeal Thus, it has been held that when a party dies in an action that survives,
    and no order is issued by the court for the appearance of the legal representative or of the heirs of the
    deceased in substitution of the deceased, and as a matter of fact no such substitution has ever been
    effected, the trial held by the court without such legal representatives or heirs and the judgment
    rendered after such trial are null and void because the court acquired no jurisdiction over the
    persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs upon whom the trial and the judgment would be
    binding.

    Under the said Rule, priority is given to the legal representative of the deceased, that is, the executor
    or administrator of his estate. It is only in cases of unreasonable delay in the appointment of an executor or
    administrator, or in cases where the heirs resort to an extrajudicial settlement of the estate, that the court
    may adopt the alternative of allowing the heirs of the deceased to be substituted for the deceased.

    In the case at bar, in view of the pendency of Special Proceeding No. 37-SF Intestate Estate of Pedro
    Sepulveda, and the pending application of petitioner to be appointed judicial administratrix of the estate, the
    respondent trial judge should have awaited the appointment of petitioner and granted her motion to
    substitute the deceased defendant.

    While the lower courts correctly held that the death of Pedro Sepulveda did not obliterate his verified
    Answer to the Complaint filed by private respondent and that the Answer filed by the ten heirs and the
    Answer filed by the Administratrix were both unnecessary, the said heirs or the administratrix could, with
    leave of court, file an Amended Answer.

    In view of the foregoing, the Court rules that the proceedings conducted by the respondent trial
    judge after the death of the deceased defendant are null and void.

    You might also like