G.R. No. 134854 January 18, 2000
FELIZARDO S. OBANDO and the ESTATES of JOSE FIGUERAS and DOÑA ALEGRIA STREBEL VDA. DE FIGUERAS, petitioners, vs. EDUARDO F. FIGUERAS and AMIGO REALTY CORPORATION as represented by ANTONIO A. KAW, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felizardo Obando, a nephew of Doña Alegria Figueras, filed a petition for probate of her purported will, which named him a universal heir and co-administrator of the joint estates of the Figueras spouses. The will was contested by respondent Eduardo Figueras, Doña Alegria’s stepson and the existing administrator. The National Bureau of Investigation found the signature on the will to be forged, leading to Obando’s criminal conviction for estafa through falsification. Despite a probate court order denying authority to sell estate properties, Eduardo sold two parcels of land to respondent Amigo Realty Corporation.
Obando, in his capacity as co-administrator, filed a civil case for annulment of the sale and reconveyance. During the pendency of this civil case, the probate court issued an order dated December 17, 1997, removing Obando from his position as co-administrator. Subsequently, after Obando had rested his case in the civil suit, respondents filed a joint motion to dismiss based on Obando’s loss of legal standing.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the trial court could act on a motion to dismiss filed after the plaintiff had rested his case, and (2) whether the dismissal was proper given the revocation of Obando’s authority as co-administrator.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. On the procedural issue, the Court held that a motion to dismiss based on a plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to sue can be filed at any time after the ground becomes available, even after an answer has been filed or after the plaintiff has rested. This is because such a defect is jurisdictional and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The Court clarified that while Rule 16 of the Rules of Court generally requires such motions to be filed before a responsive pleading, an exception exists when the ground of lack of capacity to sue becomes apparent only subsequently, as it did here upon Obando’s removal as administrator.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that Obando lost his legal personality to prosecute the civil case upon his removal as co-administrator. A suit brought by an estate administrator is prosecuted in a representative capacity. When that authority is revoked by the probate court, the administrator ceases to have any right to represent the estate or act on its behalf. Consequently, the action for annulment of sale could no longer be maintained by him. The dismissal was correctly made without prejudice, as the estate itself or a duly appointed substitute administrator could refile the action. The Court found no merit in the ancillary argument regarding the counsel of record, noting that a lawyer’s authority continues until a formal substitution is made.