Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30362)
Facts:
Victoria Aguinaldo and Simeona Aguinaldo v. Segundo Aguinaldo (Deceased), Primo Aguinaldo and Rufina Aguinaldo, et al., G.R. No. L-30362, November 26, 1970, Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiffs-appellees Victoria Aguinaldo and Simeona Aguinaldo obtained a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch II, dated March 31, 1958, ordering defendant Segundo Aguinaldo to reconvey one‑fourth pro indiviso of the property in dispute and to pay P300.00 yearly beginning 1955. A motion for execution was granted by the trial court on January 5, 1965, and the clerk issued a writ of execution on January 14, 1965. An appeal was taken and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on May 23, 1965.
On February 13, 1965, Cecilio Aguinaldo filed an ex parte urgent manifestation and motion to quash the writ of execution, alleging that Segundo Aguinaldo had died on August 7, 1959 while the appeal was pending. Plaintiffs opposed on February 25, 1965, invoking Sec. 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court to show that counsel had a duty to inform the court of the death and to give the name and residence of the executor, administrator, guardian, or other legal representative; plaintiffs asked that counsel be ordered to furnish the names of the heirs or legal representatives so substitution could be effected.
On March 4, 1965 the trial court (Judge Ricardo C. Puno presiding) gave counsel until March 22, 1965 to submit such information. Counsel merely manifested on March 23, 1965 that he had ceased to be counsel as of May 31, 1956 and claimed compliance. Plaintiffs moved on April 7, 1965 to have the heirs — Cecilio, Anastacia, Simplicio, Domingo (children) and Felicitas Bagawisan (granddaughter) — substituted as defendants. On October 5, 1965, the trial court (Judge Andres Sta. Maria presiding) granted the motion and substituted those heirs in place of the deceased Segundo Aguinaldo.
The substituted defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, by resolution of February ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court properly substitute the heirs of the deceased defendant as his legal representatives under Sec. 16, Rule 3, Rules of Court so that execution of the final judgment could proceed?
- Was the defendants' motion to quash the writ of execution on the ground that the defendant had died during the pendency of the appeal a sufficient basis to quash or stay execution after the judg...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)