GR 19993; (March, 1923) (Digest)

G.R. No. 19993; March 24, 1923
RUFINO FETALINO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO SANZ, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Rufino Fetalino filed an action to recover possession of five parcels of land allegedly unlawfully taken by the deceased Pedro Sanz in 1908. The case was originally filed against the administratrix of Pedro Sanz’s estate. Upon discovering the administratrix was not legally appointed, the court appointed Sebastian Felices as special administrator, who was substituted as defendant. Later, the estate of Pedro Sanz was distributed among his heirs, with the subject parcels awarded to Francisco Sanz. The court, upon plaintiff’s motion, ordered the substitution of Francisco Sanz as defendant in place of administrator Felices. However, no formal summons was served on Francisco Sanz; instead, the plaintiff’s attorney sent him copies of the court order and pleadings by registered mail. Francisco Sanz moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Francisco Sanz, a transferee pendente lite of the property in litigation, despite the lack of formal service of summons.

RULING

No, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Francisco Sanz due to the lack of proper summons. However, the trial court erred in dismissing the case. Francisco Sanz, as a transferee pendente lite (a purchaser of the property during the pendency of the litigation), stands in the shoes of his predecessor in interest (the estate of Pedro Sanz) and is bound by the proceedings already had. He is a proper party but not indispensable, as a judgment against the original defendant would bind him. The proper course was not to dismiss the case but to order the proper service of summons upon Francisco Sanz. The case should continue as if he had been a party from the beginning, without the need to retake evidence already presented. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to summon Francisco Sanz in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and to proceed with the trial.