Facts:

The case revolves around Heirs of Fabio Masangya and Jose Abayon (petitioners) versus Diosdado Masangya, Estelita M. Bantigue, Francisco Masangya, Tancredo Masangya, and Patrocinio Masangya (respondents) concerning a partition of real estate, filed under Civil Case No. 1535 in the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan. The original complaint was filed on November 18, 1965 by plaintiffs Fabio Masangya and Jose Abayon. During the trial, Fabio passed away on December 21, 1971, and his heirs subsequently substituted him in the case. The trial court rendered a decision on September 21, 1982, dismissing the complaint and ruling that the respondents were the rightful owners of the disputed land. This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's dismissal on December 9, 1986. An Entry of Final Judgment was issued on October 21, 1987, due to the petitioners not filing an appeal with the Supreme Court. Following this, the respondents filed a motion f

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• On November 18, 1965, plaintiffs Fabio Masangya and Jose Abayon filed a complaint for partition of real estate against the respondents.
• The dispute centered on the rightful ownership of a parcel of land, which later became the subject of a judicial partition proceeding.

Substitution of Parties Following Death

• Fabio Masangya, one of the original plaintiffs, died on December 21, 1971.
• During the proceedings on January 7, 1972, counsel for the plaintiffs, Atty. Rufo Venus, moved for the substitution of the deceased plaintiff.
• A motion for substitution, dated February 15, 1972, was filed, and the court, through an order signed by District Judge Bienvenido Ejercito, granted the substitution.
• The deceased was replaced by his heirs – Federico, Arturo, Rodrigo, Carpio, Aelasar (all surnamed Masangya), and Maura M. de Jose – who now stood as petitioners.

Trial Proceedings and Decision on the Merits

• Trial on the merits took place with Atty. Venus presenting three witnesses on behalf of Jose Abayon and the substituted parties.
• On September 21, 1982, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the petitioners’ complaint and declared the respondents as the lawful owners of the disputed land.

Appellate Proceedings

• Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling on December 9, 1986.
• An Entry of Final Judgment was issued on October 21, 1987 upon the respondents’ motion, based on the absence of an appeal from the petitioners.

Issuance of Writ of Execution and Subsequent Motions

• After the final judgment, a writ of execution was issued at the motion of the respondents.
• Petitioners filed a “Motion to Recall Order on Issuance of Writ of Execution” on two grounds:
• There was allegedly no valid substitution of the deceased plaintiff.
• There was a lack of effective notice to Jose Abayon by the appellate court.
• The trial court denied the motion on April 26, 1988, and also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration on June 29, 1988.

Petition for Certiorari Before the Supreme Court

• Petitioners sought certiorari from the Supreme Court, challenging both the substitution of parties and the notice of judgment.
• They argued that the absence of timely objection and the fatal error in substitution rendered the litigation void and the judgment non-final and non-executable.

Issue:

Validity of Party Substitution

• Whether the substitution of the deceased plaintiff, Fabio Masangya, by his heirs was legally proper and effective.
• Whether the subsequent trial proceedings, appeal, and ultimately the judgment were affected by any defect in the substitution.

Adequacy of Notice of Judgment

• Whether sending the notice of judgment to the deceased counsel (Atty. Rufo Venus) amounted to a lack of effective or due notice.
• Whether the petitioners were sufficiently notified through alternative means, ensuring their right to be heard under due process.

Impact of Estoppel on Timely Objections

• Whether petitioners’ active participation in the proceedings and failure to raise these issues at an earlier stage precluded them from later challenging the substitution and notice.
• Whether the doctrine of estoppel bars the petitioners from contesting the jurisdictional issues raised in their petition.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)