G.R. No. L-45809 December 12, 1986
SOCORRO SEPULVEDA LAWAS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, [as Judge, CFI, Cebu, Branch VIII], and PACIFICO PELAEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Pacifico Pelaez filed a complaint for ownership and partition against Pedro Sepulveda. During the presentation of evidence, defendant Sepulveda died. His former counsels filed a notice of death and later manifested in open court that their contract terminated upon their client’s death, and none of the thirteen heirs or the surviving spouse had renewed it, as they had engaged other lawyers for the intestate proceedings. Despite this, the trial judge set the case for hearing and sent notices to the deceased’s former counsels. At the hearing, the judge issued orders substituting the heirs as defendants, authorizing the plaintiff’s counsel to present evidence ex parte, and then considering the case submitted for decision. A decision was subsequently rendered against the heirs.
Petitioner Socorro Sepulveda Lawas, one of the heirs and later appointed judicial administratrix of her father’s estate, filed a motion to intervene and/or substitute the deceased defendant. The trial judge denied the motion, ruling the decision had become final. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the proceedings conducted and the decision rendered by the trial court after the death of the defendant, without proper substitution by his legal representative, are valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and granted the petition. The proceedings and decision were declared null and void. The legal logic is anchored on Rule 3, Section 16 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates the duty of an attorney to inform the court of a party’s death and provide details of the legal representative. The former counsels complied by filing a notice and manifesting they no longer represented the deceased or his heirs. The trial judge gravely abused his discretion by presuming these lawyers still represented the heirs and by proceeding without ensuring proper substitution.
Jurisprudence holds that when a party dies in an action that survives, and no substitution of the legal representative or heirs is effected, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the persons upon whom the judgment would be binding. The trial and judgment are null and void. The rule prioritizes substitution by the legal representative (executor or administrator). Only in cases of unreasonable delay or extrajudicial settlement may the heirs be substituted. Here, with intestate proceedings pending and petitioner’s appointment as administratrix, the trial judge should have awaited such appointment and granted her motion for substitution. Consequently, all post-death proceedings, including the decision, were invalid. The Court ordered petitioner substituted for the deceased defendant and set aside the void proceedings.