Title
Heirs of Masangya vs. Masangya
Case
G.R. No. 84091
Decision Date
Aug 30, 1990
Heirs challenged substitution validity and notice of judgment in a partition case; Supreme Court upheld finality, dismissing the petition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211691)

Procedural History

On November 18, 1965, Fabio Masangya and Jose Abayon initiated a complaint for partition against the respondents. Fabio Masangya passed away on December 21, 1971, and subsequent proceedings involved his heirs as petitioners. A lower court decision on September 21, 1982, favored the respondents, leading to an appeal by the petitioners which was ultimately affirmed by the Court of Appeals on December 9, 1986. The Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Final Judgment on October 21, 1987, due to the petitioners’ failure to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised by Petitioners

The petitioners challenged the validity of the substitution of the deceased plaintiff, Fabio Masangya, claiming that this rendered all subsequent proceedings null and void, thereby questioning the appellate court's decision. They also argued that their counsel's death during the appeal process deprived them of proper notice, which they contended rendered the judgment non-final.

Validation of Substitution of Parties

The trial court had granted the motion for the substitution of Fabio Masangya with his heirs in 1972, which the petitioners did not contest at the appellate level. The Supreme Court determined that petitioners, having actively participated in the trial, were estopped from later raising objections regarding the substitution, reinforcing the legal principle that one cannot challenge jurisdiction after participating in proceedings.

Notice and Effective Communication of Judgment

The petitioners argued that the notice of judgment was improperly sent to their deceased counsel, thus claiming inadequate notification. However, it was established that the petitioners received separate notice of the appellate court's decision on March 24, 1987. The court emphasized that proper notice to counsel serves as notice to the client, thus maintaining

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.