GR 188944; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188944, July 9, 2014
SPOUSES RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT, Petitioners, vs. FELIPE C. SIAPNO, Respondent.
FACTS
On May 23, 2002, Macaria Berot and spouses Rodolfo and Lilia Berot obtained a loan of ₱250,000.00 from Felipe C. Siapno, payable within one year with 2% monthly interest. As security, they mortgaged a 147-square-meter portion of a parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 1123 in the names of Macaria and her deceased husband, Pedro Berot. Macaria died on June 23, 2003. Due to the mortgagors’ default, Siapno filed a foreclosure action on July 15, 2004. In their Answer, the Berot spouses argued, among other things, that the trial court had no jurisdiction over Macaria as she was already deceased and no summons was served on her. With leave of court, Siapno amended the complaint to substitute “the ESTATE OF MACARIA BEROT, represented by Rodolfo A. Berot” as a defendant in place of Macaria. The Berot spouses did not object to this amendment or file an amended answer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) allowed the foreclosure. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the awards for exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. The CA noted that while a decedent’s estate lacks legal personality to sue or be sued, the Berot spouses waived any objection by not opposing the substitution.
ISSUE
1. Whether the intestate estate of Macaria Berot could be a proper party by waiver.
2. Whether the obligation is joint.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that while it is true that a deceased person’s estate has no legal personality and cannot be sued, the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person can be waived. Petitioners impliedly waived any objection to the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the estate of Macaria Berot when they failed to object to the amended complaint that substituted the estate as a party defendant and did not file an amended answer questioning the substitution. Thus, they are deemed to have waived this defense under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. On the second issue, the Court found that the nature of the obligation was not a pivotal issue as the CA did not make a categorical finding on whether it was joint or solidary, and the RTC decision, which ordered all defendants to pay the loan, had become final as to this aspect. The Court also noted that the CA correctly deleted the awards for exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses for lack of basis.