Case Digest (G.R. No. 132765)
Facts:
The case involves Glicerio R. Brioso, who was substituted by his heirs Felicidad Z. Brioso, Bener Z. Brioso, Julito Z. Brioso, Glicerio Z. Brioso, Jr., and Ernesto Z. Brioso, along with Concepcion B. Nolasco, Marcos Nolasco, and Salvador Z. Brioso as petitioners. The respondents are Salvadora Rili-Mariano and Leonardo C. Mariano. The events leading to this case began on February 1, 1975, when the Spouses Mariano repurchased a property from Glicerio Brioso through the Land Bank of the Philippines, following a pacto de retro sale. Despite repeated demands, Glicerio failed to deliver the property back to the Spouses Mariano, prompting them to file a complaint for recovery of possession on May 27, 1977, against Glicerio and several others, including his children and an employee. The Spouses Mariano sought to reclaim several lots comprising a total area of 19.5229 hectares located in Potot, Libmanan, Camarines Sur. The defendants contended that Glicerio had lost interest in the pr...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 132765)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- On February 1, 1975, the Spouses Salvadora Rili-Mariano and Leonardo C. Mariano (Spouses Mariano) repurchased a property they had previously sold to Glicerio Brioso (Glicerio) through a pacto de retro sale. The property consisted of Lots 715, 716, 718, 722, 724, and 725, located in Potot, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, with a total area of 19.5229 hectares.
Failure to Deliver Possession
- Despite repeated demands, Glicerio refused to deliver the entire property to the Spouses Mariano. Consequently, on May 27, 1977, the Spouses Mariano filed a complaint for recovery of possession of real property against Glicerio, Ernesto Brioso (Ernesto), Concepcion Brioso-Nolasco (Concepcion), Eusebio Nocedal (Eusebio), and Salvador Brioso (Salvador).
Defendants' Claims
- The defendants, through their counsels, argued that the Spouses Mariano had no cause of action against Glicerio because he had already lost all interest in the land. They claimed that Glicerio had installed his son Ernesto, daughter Concepcion, and employee Eusebio as tenants before the repurchase, making them bona fide cultivators-possessors. They also asserted that the titles to the properties had been transferred to the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) and that the complaint was defective for failing to implead Land Bank and Concepcion’s husband, Marcos Nolasco (Marcos), as indispensable parties.
Amended Complaint and Pre-Trial
- The Spouses Mariano amended their complaint to include Land Bank and Marcos as defendants. During pre-trial, the complaint was dismissed against Land Bank, Ernesto, and Eusebio, leaving Glicerio, Concepcion, Marcos, and Salvador as the remaining defendants.
Death of Glicerio and Substitution
- Glicerio died on August 30, 1987. The Spouses Mariano filed a motion for substitution of the deceased defendant, which the trial court granted. The heirs of Glicerio, including Felicidad Z. Brioso, Bener Z. Brioso, Julito Z. Brioso, Glicerio Z. Brioso Jr., Ernesto, Concepcion, and Salvador, were substituted as defendants.
Trial Court Decision
- On July 14, 1995, the trial court ruled in favor of the Spouses Mariano, ordering the defendants to pay damages and turn over possession of Lots 716, 722, and 725. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Substitution of Deceased Party: The trial court failed to order the appearance of Glicerio’s legal representative or heirs after his death, as required by Section 17, Rule 3 of the old Rules of Court. This failure rendered the substitution invalid and the proceedings void as to the heirs who were not properly substituted.
- Jurisdiction Over Heirs: The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of Salvador, Concepcion, Ernesto, and Marcos because they actively participated in the case, either as original defendants or through their testimonies in defense of Glicerio’s interests. Their participation satisfied the purpose of the substitution rule, ensuring their right to due process was not violated.
- Binding Effect of Judgment: The judgment of the trial court was valid and binding on the heirs who participated in the proceedings but void as to those who did not. The Court emphasized that formal substitution is not necessary when heirs voluntarily appear and defend the deceased’s interests.
Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. The trial court’s judgment was declared void as to Bener, Julito, and Glicerio Jr. due to lack of jurisdiction. However, the judgment remained valid as to Felicidad, Concepcion, Marcos, Salvador, and Ernesto, who had actively participated in the case.