7/29/2019 Vda de Haberer vs CA

1/2

G.R. Nos. L-42699 to L-42709 May 26, 1981THE HEIRS OF THE LATE FLORENTINA NUGUID VDA. DE HABERER, petitioner,

vs.COURT OF APPEALS, ** FEDERICO MARTINEZ, BALDOMERO MANALO,

FAUSTINO BAGALAWIS, FEDERICO STA. TERESA, ANGELITO KING, GREGORIO

DEL ROSARIO, LEODOVICO TORRES, LEON SORIANO, SANTIAGO TUMANG,LUIS PASTOR and CRISTINO LIBRAMANTE, respondents.

FACTS: The cases originated whereby the original petitioner, the late Florentina NuguidVda de Haberer filed 11 complaints against private respondents for recovery of parcelsof lands located in Mandaluyong Rizal. The CFI dismissed the complaint. Upon motionof petitioner, the case was reopened and retried on the ground of newly discoveredevidence. The decision was then appealed to the appellant court wherein the said courtdismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. The Supreme Court setasides the appellate courts dismissal of the appeal and remanded it back to CA. On itspending appeal, appellant died. The counsels then informed the court of the death of

the appellant. Respondents then contends that the lawyers of the deceased "no longerany legal standing and her attorneys could no longer act for and in her behalf for thereason that their client-attorney relationship had been automatically terminated orsevered" and asked that the appeal be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Theappellants lawyers prayed for either the extension of time to file briefs for they dontknow whether their services are still needed by the heirs, or suspension of the period forthe filing of briefs pending an appointment of executor of the estate of the deceasedclient. The CA denied the request for extension and denied the appeal and furthermotions filed by the appellants lawyers. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent court erred in dismissing the case

RULING: Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court sets the rule on substitution of partiesin case of death of any of the parties. Under the Rule, it is the court that is called upon,after notice of a party's death and the claim is not thereby extinguished, to order uponproper notice the legal representative of the deceased to appear within a period of 30days or such time as it may grant. Since no administrator of the estate of the deceasedappellant had yet been appointed as the same was still pending determination in theCourt of First Instance of Quezon City, the motion of the deceased's counsel for thesuspension of the running of the period within which to file appellant's brief was well-taken. More, under the Rule, it should have set a period for the substitution of thedeceased party with her legal representative or heirs, failing which, the court is calledupon to order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal representative ofthe deceased at the cost of the deceased's estate, and such representative shall then"immediately appear for and on behalf of the interest of the deceased."

Respondent court gravely erred in not following the Rule and requiring the appearanceof the legal representative of the deceased and instead dismissing the appeal of thedeceased who yet had to be substituted in the pending appeal. Thus, it has been heldthat when a party dies in an action that survives, and no order is issued by the court for

7/29/2019 Vda de Haberer vs CA

2/2

the appearance of the legal representative or of the heirs of the deceased in substitutionof the deceased, and as a matter of fact no such substitution has ever been effected,the trial held by the court without such legal representatives or heirs and the judgmentrendered after such trial are null and void because the court acquired no jurisdictionover the persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs upon whom the trial and the

judgment would be binding.