G.R. No. 119193 March 29, 1996
HEIRS OF MAYOR NEMENCIO GALVEZ, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RTC OF BULACAN, BR. 9, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF FOR BULACAN, AMPARO SAN GABRIEL MENDOZA and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN (Guiguinto) and ANDRES MANUEL, respondents.

FACTS

Amparo San Gabriel-Mendoza, owner of the Balagtas Sports Arena cockpit, filed a Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition with Damages against Mayor Nemencio Galvez and the Sangguniang Bayan of Balagtas, Bulacan. She sought to compel the issuance of a business license and to enjoin the enforcement of a municipal resolution ordering the closure of her cockpit for alleged unpaid taxes. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a temporary restraining order allowing operations to resume. During the pendency of the case, Mayor Galvez died on March 6, 1987. No formal substitution of parties was effected by the court. Subsequently, the RTC rendered a decision on May 6, 1988, ruling in favor of Mendoza and ordering the heirs of Mayor Galvez, among others, to pay moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. A writ of execution was later issued, leading to the levy and sale of a property owned pro-indiviso by the deceased mayor to satisfy the money judgment.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the money judgment against the deceased Mayor Galvez is valid despite his death during trial and the lack of formal substitution of parties; and (2) Assuming the case survived, whether the judgment can be enforced against his estate in the same special proceeding or must be pursued in a separate estate proceeding.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the money judgment against the deceased mayor is null and void. Upon the death of Mayor Galvez during the pendency of the suit, the action for damages against him did not survive. The claim for damages was inherently personal, arising from alleged official acts, and extinguished upon his death. Furthermore, the court lost jurisdiction over his person upon his death. Any judgment rendered against a dead person is a patent nullity. The failure to effect a formal substitution of parties as required by the Rules of Court was not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional defect. The trial court proceeded without a valid party defendant, rendering its decision void. Consequently, the writ of execution and the subsequent sale of the deceased’s property based on that void judgment are also null and void. The proper recourse for enforcing a money claim against a deceased’s estate is to file the claim in the settlement proceedings of the estate, not through execution in the same case where the defendant had died. The Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition on technicalities was reversed.