G.R. No. L-41715. June 18, 1976.
ROSALIO BONILLA, SALVACION BONILLA, and PONCIANO BONILLA, petitioners, vs. LEON BARCENA, MAXIMA ARIAS BALLENA, ESPERANZA BARCENA, MANUEL BARCENA, AGUSTINA NERI, and HON. LEOPOLDO GIRONELLA, respondents.
FACTS
Fortunata Barcena filed a complaint to quiet title over parcels of land in the Court of First Instance of Abra on March 31, 1975. During the pendency of the case, specifically on July 9, 1975, Fortunata Barcena died. Upon being informed of her death during a hearing on a motion to dismiss, her counsel confirmed the death and asked the court for the proper substitution of parties by her minor children, Rosalio and Salvacion Bonilla, and her husband, Ponciano Bonilla, the petitioners herein.
The respondent court, however, instead of allowing the substitution, immediately dismissed the complaint on the ground that a dead person has no legal personality to sue. The court subsequently denied multiple motions for reconsideration filed by the counsel, which invoked Sections 16 and 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on the duty to inform the court of a party’s death and the procedure for substitution. The court also denied a subsequent manifestation praying that the minor children be allowed to substitute their deceased mother.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint and refusing the substitution of the deceased plaintiff’s heirs as parties in interest.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the respondent court’s orders. The legal logic is anchored on the rules of procedure and the nature of property rights transmitted upon death. While a dead person cannot sue, the court acquired jurisdiction over Fortunata Barcena when she filed the complaint while alive. Her subsequent death did not automatically extinguish the action or oust the court’s jurisdiction.
Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death. Thus, upon Fortunata Barcena’s death, her heirs acquired an interest in the subject properties, and her claim was transmitted to them. The action to quiet title is one that survives death as it affects primarily property rights. Consequently, under Section 17, Rule 3, the court had a mandatory duty to order the substitution of the deceased’s legal representatives or heirs.
The respondent court erred in dismissing the case outright. Its duty, upon being informed of the death, was to order substitution. The fact that the heirs were minors was not a bar; the court could have appointed a guardian ad litem for them, as suggested by the counsel. By refusing substitution and dismissing the case, the respondent court disregarded clear procedural rules and deprived the heirs of their right to pursue the transmitted claim, constituting a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and directed the lower court to allow the substitution of the minor heirs and appoint a guardian ad litem.
