Case Summary (G.R. No. 191805)
Key Dates
• September 21, 2011: Complaint for sum of money filed by Donald against Gina.
• April 23, 2012: Gina’s Answer denying liability and contesting alleged receipt.
• October 1, 2012: Amended Complaint impleading the estate of Anthony Richard Butler.
• August 15, 2013: RTC denied Gina’s Motion to Dismiss and Donald’s Motion to Declare Default.
• November 25, 2013: RTC denied Gina’s Motion for Reconsideration.
• February 6, 2015: CA Decision granting Gina’s Rule 65 petition and dismissing the entire complaint.
• July 14, 2015: CA Resolution denying Donald’s motion for reconsideration.
• November 8, 2017: Final Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution as governing instrument.
• Rules of Court, particularly:
– Rule 3, Section 1 (capacity to be sued)
– Rule 16, Section 1(g) (dismissal for failure to state a cause of action)
– Rule 65 (certiorari proceedings)
• Jurisprudence on capacity to sue and be sued (Ventura v. Militante).
Factual Background
Donald advanced approximately ₱12.5 million to ActiveFun between 2006 and 2007. After Anthony’s death in December 2009, the contemplated investment agreement failed to materialize. Gina personally acknowledged a partial repayment of ₱1 million on October 15, 2010, but later disowned the signature on that receipt and denied any obligation. Donald sent a demand letter in July 2011. Failing to obtain full recovery, he filed suit against Gina for sum of money and later moved to amend his complaint to implead the estate of Anthony, alleging that a handwritten note showed the ₱1 million was payable by Anthony’s estate.
Trial Court Rulings
The RTC denied Gina’s Motion to Dismiss Ad Cautelam, holding that Anthony’s estate, represented by Gina as surviving spouse, was a necessary party for complete relief. It also denied Donald’s Motion to Declare Gina in default, noting that she had timely filed an answer to the Amended Complaint. Gina’s Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied.
Court of Appeals Decision
Gina petitioned for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing grave abuse in naming the deceased’s estate as defendant and in treating her as its legal representative. The CA granted the petition, set aside the RTC orders, and dismissed the entire complaint. It held that neither a deceased person nor an estate is a juridical entity capable of being sued (Rule 3, Section 1), that Anthony’s estate was indispensable given the undisputed handwritten note, and that Gina could not validly represent an entity without legal personality.
Issues Presented
- Whether the CA erred in affirming that a deceased person’s estate cannot be named defendant in an ordinary civil action.
- Whether the CA exceeded the relief prayed for by dismissing the entire complaint when only the estate’s participation was contested.
Supreme Court Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious. Under Rule 3, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and controlling jurisprudence, a deceased person or the decedent’s estate lacks legal personality and cannot be sued in an ordinary civil action. Accordingly, the complaint against Anthony’s estate must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action (Rule 16, Section 1[g]) a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 191805)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Donald Francis Gaffney (petitioner) against Gina V. Butler (respondent).
- The Court of Appeals (CA) Special 12th Division reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 70 Orders dated August 15, 2013 and November 25, 2013 in Civil Case No. 73187.
- The RTC Orders had denied Gina’s Motion to Dismiss Ad Cautelam and Donald’s Motion to Declare Defendant in Default, as well as Gina’s ensuing Motion for Reconsideration.
- Donald moved for review of the CA Decision dated February 6, 2015 and Resolution dated July 14, 2015.
Facts
- Between 2006 and 2007, petitioner Gina and her husband Anthony Richard Butler invited Donald to invest in ActiveFun Corporation, where Gina was President and Anthony was Treasurer and CEO.
- Donald advanced approximately ₱12,500,000 as his initial investment.
- Anthony died in December 2009, and the proposed investment agreement then failed to materialize.
- Gina undertook to repay the investment plus interest but paid only ₱1,000,000 on October 15, 2010, receipt of which Donald acknowledged in writing.
- Multiple demands by phone, e-mail, and a July 13, 2011 registered letter for ₱25,000,000 plus accrued interest went unheeded.
- On August 2, 2011, Gina denied ever knowing of Donald’s investment and contested the authenticity of the acknowledgment receipt.
Pre-Trial and Amended Complaint
- During pre-trial, parties were directed to pre-mark documentary evidence, including two conflicting receipts: one referring to ActiveFun investment and another to debt owed by Anthony.
- Donald filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Complaint to implead the estate or heirs of Anthony as additional party-defendant, alleging Gina required a separate handwritten acknowledgment as precondition for payment.
- The RTC granted the motion on February 13, 2013. Gina did not move for reconsideration.
- An Alias Summons was served on Gina purportedly as representative of Anthony’s estate.
Motions Before the RTC
- Gina’s Motion to Dismiss Ad