G.R. No. 132765 ; January 31, 2003
GLICERIO R. BRIOSO, substituted by FELICIDAD Z. BRIOSO, BENER Z. BRIOSO, JULITO Z. BRIOSO, GLICERIO Z. BRIOSO, JR., and ERNESTO Z. BRIOSO, CONCEPCION B. NOLASCO, MARCOS NOLASCO and SALVADOR Z. BRIOSO, petitioners, vs. SALVADORA RILI-MARIANO and LEONARDO C. MARIANO, respondents.

FACTS

On February 1, 1975, respondents Spouses Salvadora Rili-Mariano and Leonardo C. Mariano, through the Land Bank of the Philippines, repurchased property they had previously sold to Glicerio Brioso under a pacto de retro sale. Despite demands, Glicerio refused to deliver the entire property. On May 27, 1977, the Spouses Mariano filed a complaint for recovery of possession of real property against Glicerio, Ernesto Brioso, Concepcion Brioso-Nolasco, Eusebio Nocedal, and Salvador Brioso. The complaint was later amended to implead the Land Bank and Concepcion’s husband, Marcos Nolasco. During pre-trial, the complaint was dismissed against Land Bank, Ernesto, and Eusebio. Trial proceeded against Glicerio, Concepcion, Marcos, and Salvador. Glicerio died on August 30, 1987. Defendants’ counsel filed a Notice of Death. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Motion for Substitution of Deceased Defendant, which was received by defendants’ counsel. The trial court issued an Order admitting the motion. Trial continued, and defendants presented evidence, including testimonies from Salvador, Concepcion, and Ernesto. On July 14, 1995, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the Spouses Mariano, ordering the defendants and the substitute defendants for Glicerio to pay damages and to turn over possession of certain lots. Petitioners (Glicerio’s heirs, Concepcion, Marcos, and Salvador) appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising the issue of invalid substitution of the deceased party. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that substitution was valid and the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether there was a valid substitution of deceased Glicerio.
2. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners.

RULING

The petition is partly meritorious. The Supreme Court ruled that the substitution of the deceased defendant Glicerio was not validly effected in accordance with Section 17, Rule 3 of the old Rules of Court. The trial court failed to order the legal representative or heirs of the deceased to appear within a specified period upon proper notice. The mere issuance of an order admitting the motion for substitution, without directing the heirs to appear, did not comply with the rule. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of Glicerio’s heirs (Felicidad, Bener, Julito, Glicerio, Jr., and Ernesto), and the decision of the trial court is void as to them. However, the Court ruled that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners Concepcion Brioso-Nolasco, Marcos Nolasco, and Salvador Brioso. They were original parties-defendants who actively participated in the trial, presented evidence, and were represented by counsel. Their participation constituted voluntary appearance and submission to the court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial court’s decision is valid and binding as to them. The case was remanded to the trial court for proper substitution of the deceased defendant Glicerio and for further proceedings as to his heirs.