GR 157483; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157483 ; June 21, 2007
SPOUSES CARLOS and JUANITA SURIA, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF BRIGIDO M. TOMOLIN, namely: DAMIANA T. PEREZ and LUCRESIA T. DECLARO, Respondents.
FACTS
Brigido M. Tomolin was the registered owner of a parcel of land. On July 13, 1998, he executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of petitioner Carlos Suria, leading to the cancellation of Tomolin’s title and the issuance of a new one in Suria’s name. The property was subsequently subdivided, and derivative titles were issued to petitioners.
On September 22, 2000, Tomolin filed a Complaint for Annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale and Cancellation of Title against the petitioners. He alleged he was inveigled into signing the contract while seriously ill and that the purchase price was never paid. He filed an amended complaint the following month. Tomolin died on October 18, 2000. The trial court allowed his heirs, the respondents, to be substituted as parties in the case. Petitioners opposed the substitution, contending the action did not survive Tomolin’s death.
ISSUE
Whether the action for annulment of sale and reconveyance of property filed by Brigido Tomolin survives his death, thereby allowing the substitution of his heirs as parties.
RULING
Yes, the action survives. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the petitioners’ challenge to the substitution. The legal test for the survival of an action, as established in Bonilla v. Barcena and reiterated in Gonzales v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, depends on whether the wrong complained of affects primarily property and property rights, with injury to the person being merely incidental. If so, the action survives. Conversely, if the injury is primarily to the person, with property effects being incidental, the action does not survive.
Applying this test, the Court examined the reliefs prayed for in Tomolin’s complaint: annulment of the deed of sale, reconveyance of the land and his original certificate of title, and cancellation of the titles issued to the petitioners. These prayers indisputably pertain to the recovery and clear establishment of property rights over the subject land. The allegations of fraud or undue influence, while personal in nature, are incidental to the core objective of resolving ownership and title. Therefore, the action is primarily in rem or quasi in rem, concerning property, and survives the death of the original plaintiff. The trial court correctly allowed the heirs to be substituted to continue prosecuting the action.