G.R. No. L-1429, December 31, 1904
MACARIA ASUNCION, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. MANUEL NIETO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On July 17, 1876, Felipe Llopis executed a public document acknowledging a debt of 839 pesos in favor of Tomas G. Gonzalez San Robles, securing it with a mortgage on his land. The credit was subsequently assigned to Justo Guivara and then to Manuel Nieto. On February 18, 1902, Nieto initiated an action to foreclose the mortgage against Llopis. On May 21, 1902, the court rendered a judgment by default against Llopis, and on August 12, 1902, the mortgaged property was sold at a sheriff’s execution sale to Nieto for 10,000 pesos. On the same day, Macaria Asuncion (Llopis’s widow) and his children filed a motion to stay execution and to declare the foreclosure proceedings null and void, alleging that Llopis had died in 1883approximately twenty years before the action was filedand that they, as his heirs residing in Mariquina, had not been properly notified. The lower court declared the subsequent proceedings null and void, ordering the plaintiffs (heirs) to pay Nieto 1,582 pesos with interest to regain possession, and Nieto appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the foreclosure proceedings and the resulting judgment against the deceased debtor Felipe Llopis, without summoning his legal representatives or heirs, are valid and binding.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, declaring the foreclosure proceedings null and void. The Court held that Nieto’s action was brought against a defendant who had been dead for twenty years, in violation of Sections 114 and 708 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which require that actions be brought against the administrator or legal representatives of a deceased debtor. Service of summons by publication against a deceased person is invalid, as personal service upon the proper representatives is mandatory. Nieto failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain Llopis’s status or whereabouts, especially since Llopis’s family was known and could have provided information. Consequently, the judgment by default and all subsequent proceedings, including the attachment and sale of the property, were null and void. The heirs, not having been made parties to the suit, were not bound by the judgment. The Court ordered the affirmation of the lower court’s judgment, with costs against Nieto.