G.R. No. 191079 , March 02, 2016
JOEL CARDENAS, HEIR OF THE LATE ELINAIDA L. ALCANTARA, REPRESENTED BY ANTONIO IGNACIO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES SIMPLICIA P. AGUILAR AND MAXIMO V. AGUILAR AND ATTY. NORMAN R. BUENO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On November 8, 2000, Elinaida L. Alcantara obtained a loan from Spouses Maximo and Simplicia Aguilar, secured by an instrument denominated as a “Venta con Pacto de Retro” (Sale with Right to Repurchase) over a parcel of land. After Alcantara failed to repurchase the property within the agreed period and an extension, her son, Joel Cardenas, attempted to redeem it by offering payment, which was refused. Alcantara filed a complaint (Civil Case No. LP-02-0300) seeking reformation of the instrument into an equitable mortgage and specific performance. Both Alcantara and Maximo Aguilar died during the pendency of the case. Cardenas was substituted for Alcantara. Counsel for the Spouses Aguilar filed a Notice of Death for Maximo, stating he was survived by his spouse Simplicia and daughter Melba A. Clavo de Comer, both already defendants. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Decision on February 27, 2009, declaring the contract an equitable mortgage and ordering Cardenas to pay the P3,000,000.00 principal loan, upon which the defendants were to release the mortgage. Neither party appealed. On July 27, 2009, the defendants’ counsel filed a Motion for Execution. Cardenas opposed, arguing that the original defendants (Spouses Aguilar) were dead and no proper substitution of parties was effected as required by the Rules. The RTC granted the motion and issued a Writ of Execution on October 13, 2009, and denied Cardenas’s motion for reconsideration on January 18, 2010.

ISSUE

1. Whether a Motion for Execution can be filed by a counsel when the judgment obligees were already dead and neither an executor/administrator was appointed nor an heir was substituted to authorize the counsel.
2. Whether the court can grant such a Motion for Execution under those circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed RTC Orders. The Court held that the RTC had jurisdiction to issue the Writ of Execution. While the Rules require substitution of a deceased party, the purpose is to ensure that the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the substitute. In this case, Melba A. Clavo de Comer, the surviving daughter and heir of the deceased Spouses Aguilar, was already a party-defendant in the case from the filing of the Amended Complaint, was served with summons, and actively participated throughout the proceedings. Therefore, the court had already acquired jurisdiction over her person, rendering a formal substitution unnecessary. The Court also admonished petitioner’s counsel for trifling with court processes by actively litigating to obtain a favorable judgment and then opposing its execution on unsubstantial grounds.