G.R. Nos. 78295 & 79917, April 10, 1989
ATTORNEY CELSO D. LAVIÑA, REMEDIOS M. MUYOT, SPOUSES VIRGILIO D. CEBRERO and SEGUNDINA MAGNO-CEBRERO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and JOSEFINA C. GABRIEL, respondents.

FACTS

Maria Carmen Gabriel executed a donation mortis causa over a Sampaloc property in favor of her sister-in-law, Josefina C. Gabriel, in April 1983. Months later, gravely ill, Carmen executed a last will bequeathing the same property to her cousin, Remedios Muyot, and a general power of attorney appointing Muyot as her attorney-in-fact. In November 1983, Carmen thumbmarked an affidavit repudiating the donation to Josefina. Muyot, acting under the power of attorney, then sold the property to the Cebrero spouses. Carmen died shortly thereafter.
Josefina filed a complaint to annul the revocation of donation and the subsequent sale, impleading Carmen’s estate, Muyot, and the Cebreros. She recorded a notice of lis pendens on the title. The trial court, through Judge Vicencio, allowed Atty. Celso Laviña, originally retained by Muyot as Carmen’s counsel, to represent the estate. It also held that service of summons on the estate through Muyot was valid and later cancelled the notice of lis pendens. Josefina filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the estate of Carmen P. Gabriel through service of summons on Remedios Muyot as attorney-in-fact; and (2) whether Atty. Celso Laviña retained authority to represent the estate after Carmen’s death.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, ruling that the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the estate and that Atty. Laviña’s authority was extinguished upon Carmen’s death. The legal logic is grounded in the nature of agency and representation. A power of attorney is extinguished upon the death of the principal under Article 1919(3) of the Civil Code. The instrument explicitly stated Muyot’s powers were for the “sole benefit” of Carmen, negating any claim of a common interest that might survive under Article 1930. Consequently, upon Carmen’s death, Muyot was bereft of any authority to represent her or her estate. Service of summons upon her was therefore void.
Regarding legal representation, the Court held that a dead client has no legal personality. Attorney-client relationship is terminated by the client’s death. Atty. Laviña’s authority, derived from Muyot’s now-extinguished power of attorney, ceased upon Carmen’s demise. An estate can only be sued through a duly appointed executor or administrator, as per the Rules of Court. Since no such representative was properly served at the time, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the estate. The Court of Appeals correctly annulled the order cancelling the lis pendens and found no basis to reverse its contempt resolution. The petitions were dismissed.