G.R. No. 196919; June 6, 2011
JOSE RAMILO O. REGALADO, Petitioner, vs. CHAUCER B. REGALADO and GERARD R. CUEVAS, Respondents.

FACTS

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP UDK No. 0235. The CA initially dismissed petitioner Jose Ramilo O. Regalado’s appeal on three grounds: 1) failure to include a written explanation for not availing of personal service/filing; 2) failure to attach necessary pleadings and documents; and 3) failure to show the authority of the purported representative to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping for the original plaintiff, Hugo C. Regalado. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching the missing pleadings and asserting his authority via a Special Power of Attorney. Respondents opposed, manifesting that Hugo Regalado had died on April 23, 2008, before the RTC decision dated May 15, 2008. Hugo Regalado’s counsel, Atty. Miguel B. Albar, furnished the CA with a notice of death and a list of legal representatives on December 15, 2009. The CA denied reconsideration, ruling that with Hugo’s death, Jose Ramilo’s authority as agent terminated, rendering the petition without proper verification and a mere scrap of paper. Petitioner now argues before the Supreme Court that as a compulsory heir, he has an interest in the case, which is an action for cancellation of title—a real action that survives death.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal based on procedural grounds related to verification and representation, despite the death of the original party and the survival of the action.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court first granted petitioner’s plea to pursue the appeal as a pauper litigant, finding compliance with Rule 141, Section 19.
On the merits, the Court ruled that the action for cancellation of title is a real action affecting title to property, which survives the death of a party under Rule 87, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. Upon the death of a party in a surviving action, Rule 3, Section 16 requires counsel to inform the court within 30 days and provide the names and addresses of the legal representatives. The heirs may be allowed substitution without requiring an executor or administrator.
While Hugo Regalado’s counsel, Atty. Albar, was negligent in belatedly notifying the CA of the death (20 months after, on December 15, 2009), this failure is merely a ground for disciplinary action against counsel. It should not prejudice the deceased’s legal representatives. The CA erred in dismissing the appeal based on the invalidated Special Power of Attorney after receiving the notice of death. Instead, upon receiving the notice and list of representatives, the CA should have ordered their appearance and substitution as parties to the appeal. By not doing so, the CA deprived the legal representatives, including petitioner as a compulsory heir, of due process, rendering its resolutions void.
The Supreme Court ANNULLED and SET ASIDE the CA Resolutions. The case was REMANDED to the CA with orders to: 1) substitute the legal representatives of Hugo Regalado as petitioner, and 2) give due course to the appeal. Atty. Miguel B. Albar was REPRIMANDED with a warning for his negligence.