G.R. No. L-4227 January 28, 1952
JOSE BARRAMEDA, DOLORES B. MAGADIA, and JULIAN BARRAMEDA, JR., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PAULINO BARBARA and MARELA BARBARA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. R-119, Paulino and Marcela Barbara (defendants-appellants herein) sued Julian Barrameda (deceased father of plaintiffs-appellees) to compel redemption of a land they claimed was mortgaged. Barrameda answered that the transaction was a sale with pacto de retro, unredeemed within six years, making him the absolute owner. During pendency, Julian Barrameda died. The court ordered the plaintiffs (the Barbaras) to amend their complaint to substitute Barrameda’s legal representative. They failed to comply after seven months. On May 7, 1947, counsel for the deceased Barrameda moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which the court granted on May 13, 1947. Subsequently, the heirs of Julian Barrameda (plaintiffs-appellees) filed the present case (No. 843) seeking declaration of ownership and damages. The Barbaras answered, alleging the deed was an unauthorized mortgage and asserting ownership by possession. The Barrameda heirs moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing it was barred by prior judgment, stated no cause of action, and alleged no valid defense. The trial court, without receiving evidence, granted the motion, ruling the prior dismissal was a final adjudication on the merits, and declared the Barrameda heirs owners. The Barbaras appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. R-119 for failure to prosecute constituted a final adjudication on the merits that barred the Barbaras’ counterclaim in the present case.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that the dismissal in Case No. R-119 was not a valid adjudication on the merits because the procedure for substitution of a deceased party under Rules 3, sections 16 and 17, was not followed. Upon Barrameda’s death, his attorney had the duty to inform the court and furnish the name of his legal representative. The court erred by directly ordering the plaintiffs (Barbaras) to make the substitution without first requiring the deceased’s attorney to comply. This rendered the order void, and the Barbaras’ non-compliance could not be deemed a failure to prosecute. Furthermore, the motion to dismiss in Case No. R-119 was filed by counsel for the deceased Barrameda, who no longer had any legal personality to represent. Consequently, the dismissal did not bar the Barbaras from raising their claims in the subsequent case.