SECONDDIVISION

MEMORACIONZ.CRUZ,

G.R.No.173292
representedbyEDGARDOZ.
CRUZ,
Petitioner,

Present:

CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,

NACHURA,

BERSAMIN,*
versus
ABAD,andMENDOZA,JJ.

OSWALDOZ.CRUZ,
Promulgated:
Respondent.

September1,2010
xx

DECISION

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

[1]
[2]
Thisisapetitionforreview oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)Decision dated20
December2005andResolutiondated21June2006inCAG.R.CVNo.80355.TheCA
[3]
affirmedwithmodificationtheOrder dated2June1997oftheRegionalTrialCourtof
theNationalCapitalJudicialRegion,Branch30,Manila(RTC).

TheAntecedentFacts

Theundisputedfacts,assummarizedbytheCourtofAppeals,areasfollows:

OnOctober18,1993,MemoracionZ.CruzfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourtinManila
aComplaintagainstherson,defendantappelleeOswaldoZ.Cruz,forAnnulmentofSale,
ReconveyanceandDamages.

Memoracion claimed that during her union with her commonlaw husband (deceased)
Architect Guido M. Cruz, she acquired a parcel of land located at Tabora corner Limay
Streets,Bo.Obrero,TondoManilathatthesaidlotwasregisteredinhernameunderTCT
No.63467attheRegisterofDeedsofManilathatsometimeinJuly1992,shediscovered
thatthetitletothesaidpropertywastransferredbyappelleeandthelatterswifeintheir
names in August 1991 under TCT No. 0199377 by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated
February 12, 1973 that the said deed was executed through fraud, forgery,
misrepresentation and simulation, hence, null and void that she, with the help of her
husbands relatives, asked appellee to settle the problem that despite repeated pleas and
demands,appelleerefusedtoreconveytoherthesaidpropertythatshefiledacomplaint
against appellee before the office of the Barangay having jurisdiction over the subject
property and that since the matter was unsettled, the barangay x x x issued x x x a
certificationtofile[an]actionincourt,nowthesubjectofcontroversy.

AfterMemoracionxxxfinishedpresentingherevidenceinchief,shediedonOctober30,
1996.ThroughaManifestation,Memoracionscounsel,Atty.RobertoT.Neri,notifiedthe
trialcourtonJanuary13,1997ofthefactofsuchdeath,evidencedbyacertificatethereof.

For his part, appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that (1) the plaintiffs
reconveyanceactionisapersonalactionwhichdoesnotsurviveapartysdeath,pursuant
toSection21,Rule3oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,and(2)toallowthecasetocontinue
wouldresultinlegalabsurditywherebyoneheirisrepresentingthedefendant[andisa]
coplaintiffinthiscase.

OnJune2,1997,thetrialcourtissuedtheappealedOrderinadispositionthatreads:
Wherefore,inviewoftheforegoing,thiscaseisordereddismissedwithout
prejudicetotheprosecutionthereofintheproperestateproceedings.

On October 17, 1997, Memoracions sonheir, Edgardo Z. Cruz, manifested to the trial
courtthatheisretainingtheservicesofAtty.Nerifortheplaintiff.Simultaneously,Atty.
Neri filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the June 2, 1997 Order. However, the said
motionwassubsequentlydeniedbyActingPresidingJudgeCielitoN.MindaroGrulla[on
October31,2000].

Thereafter, Edgardo Cruz, as an heir of Memoracion Cruz, filed a notice of appeal in

behalf of the deceased plaintiff, signed by Atty. Neri, but the appeal was dismissed by
JudgeMindaroGrulla,[statingthat]theproperremedybeingcertiorariunderRule65of
the Rules of Court. On appellants motion for reconsideration, Judge Lucia Pena
Purugganangrantedthesame,statingthattheremedyunderthecircumstancesisordinary
[4]
appeal.


TheCourtofAppealsRuling

PetitionerMemoracionZ.Cruz,representedbyEdgardoZ.Cruz,filedwiththeCourtof
Appeals a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure.On20December2005,theCArenderedjudgmentaffirmingwithmodification
theRTCdecision.WequotethedispositiveportionoftheCAsdecisionbelow.

WHEREFORE,theappealedOrderisAFFIRMED,withMODIFICATION.The
trialcourtsdirectiveastotheprosecutionoftheactionintheproperestateproceedingsis
DELETED.

[5]
SOORDERED.

PetitionersMotionforReconsiderationwasdeniedbytheCAinitsResolutionof21June
[6]
2006.

Hence,thisappeal.

TheIssues

Theissuesforresolutioninthiscaseare:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Memoracion Z. Cruzs
Petition for Annulment of Deed of Sale, Reconveyance and Damages is a
purelypersonalactionwhichdidnotsurviveherdeathand

2. WhethertheCourtofAppealserredinaffirmingwithmodificationtheRTC
OrderdismissingthePetitionforAnnulmentofDeedofSale,Reconveyance
andDamages.

TheCourtsRuling


Wefindtheappealmeritorious.
ThePetitionforAnnulmentofSale,Reconveyance
andDamagessurvivedthedeathofpetitioner

The criterion for determining whether an action survives the death of a petitioner was
[7]
elucidatedinBonillav.Barcena, towit:

Thequestionastowhetheranactionsurvivesornotdependsonthenatureofthe
action and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong
complained[of]affectsprimarilyandprincipallypropertyandpropertyrights,theinjuries
tothepersonbeingmerelyincidental,whileinthecausesofactionwhichdonotsurvive,
the injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights of property affected
[8]
beingincidental.

Ifthecaseaffectsprimarilyandprincipallypropertyandpropertyrights,thenitsurvives
[9]
thedeathoftheplaintifforpetitioner.InSumaljagv.Literato, weheldthataPetition
forDeclarationofNullityofDeedofSaleofRealPropertyisonerelatingtopropertyand
propertyrights,andtherefore,survivesthedeathofthepetitioner.Accordingly,theinstant
caseforannulmentofsaleofrealpropertymeritssurvivaldespitethedeathofpetitioner
MemoracionZ.Cruz.

TheCAerredinaffirmingRTCsdismissalofthe
PetitionforAnnulmentofDeedofSale,
ReconveyanceandDamages

Whenapartydiesduringthependencyofacase,Section16,Rule3ofthe1997Revised
RulesofCivilProcedurenecessarilyapplies,viz:
Sec.16.Deathofpartydutyofcounsel.Wheneverapartytoapendingactiondies,and
the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the
courtwithinthirty(30)daysaftersuchdeathofthefactthereof,andtogivethenameand
addressofhislegalrepresentativeorrepresentatives.Failureofcounseltocomplywith
thisdutyshallbeagroundfordisciplinaryaction.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without
requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
guardianadlitemfortheminorheirs.
Thecourtshallforthwithordersaidlegalrepresentativeorrepresentativestoappearand
besubstitutedwithinaperiodofthirty(30)daysfromnotice.
Ifnolegalrepresentativeisnamedbythecounselforthedeceasedparty,oriftheoneso
namedshallfailtoappearwithinthespecifiedperiod,thecourtmayordertheopposing
party,withinaspecifiedtime,toprocuretheappointmentofanexecutororadministrator
fortheestateofthedeceasedandthelattershallimmediatelyappearforandonbehalfof
the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the
opposingparty,mayberecoveredascosts.

TheforegoingsectionisarevisionofSection17,Rule3oftheoldRulesofCourt:
SEC.17.Deathofparty.Afterapartydiesandtheclaimisnottherebyextinguished,the
courtshallorder,uponpropernotice,thelegalrepresentativeofthedeceasedtoappearandto
be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as
may be granted. If the legal representative fails to appear within said time, the court may
ordertheopposingpartytoprocuretheappointmentofalegalrepresentativeofthedeceased
withinatimetobespecifiedbythecourt,andtherepresentativeshallimmediatelyappearfor
andonbehalfoftheinterestofthedeceased.Thecourtchargesinvolvedinprocuringsuch
appointment,ifdefrayedbytheopposingparty,mayberecoveredascosts.Theheirsofthe
deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the
appointmentofanexecutororadministratorandthecourtmayappointguardianadlitemfor
theminorheirs.

Iftheactionsurvivesdespitedeathofaparty,itisthedutyofthedeceasedscounselto
informthecourtofsuchdeath,andtogivethenamesandaddressesofthedeceasedslegal
representatives. The deceased may be substituted by his heirs in the pending action. As
explainedinBonilla:

xxxArticle777oftheCivilCodeprovidesthattherightstothesuccessionaretransmitted
fromthemomentofthedeathofthedecedent.Fromthemomentofthedeathofthedecedent,
theheirsbecometheabsoluteownersofhisproperty,subjecttotherightsandobligationsof
the decedent, and they cannot be deprived of their rights thereto except by the methods
providedforbylaw.Themomentofdeathisthedeterminingfactorwhentheheirsacquirea
definite right to the inheritance whether such right be pure or contingent. The right of the
heirs to the property of the deceased vestsinthem evenbefore judicialdeclarationoftheir
being heirs in the testate or intestate proceedings. When [plaintiff], therefore, died[,] her
claim or right to the parcels of land x x x was not extinguished by her death but was
transmittedtoherheirsuponherdeath.Herheirshavethusacquiredinterestintheproperties
inlitigationandbecamepartiesininterestinthecase.Thereis,therefore,noreasonforthe

respondent Court not to allow their substitution as parties in interest for the deceased
[10]
plaintiff.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel of the deceased, or the legal

representativefailstoappearwithinaspecifiedperiod,itisthedutyofthecourtwherethe
caseispendingtoordertheopposingpartytoprocuretheappointmentofanexecutoror
administrator for the estate of the deceased. The reason for this rule is to protect all
concernedwhomaybeaffectedbytheinterveningdeath,particularlythedeceasedandhis
[11]
estate.
In the instant case, petitioner (plaintiff) Memoracion Z. Cruz died on 30 October 1996.
Her counsel, Atty. Roberto T. Neri, notified the trial court of such death on 13 January
1997,throughaManifestationstatingthus:

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully gives
notice that the plaintiff, Memoracion Z. Cruz, died on October 30, 1996, in Manila as
shown by a Certificate of Death, a certified true copy of which is hereto attached as
AnnexAhereof.

The legal representative of the deceased plaintiff is her son EDGARDO CRUZ whose
addressisatNo.3231ETaboraSt.,Bo.Obrero,Tondo,Manila.

[12]

xxxx

On24January1997,respondent(defendant)OswaldoZ.Cruzmovedtodismissthecase
alleging that it did not survive Memoracions death. The RTC granted the motion to
dismissintheassailedOrderdated2June1997.

We rule that it was error for the RTC to dismiss the case. As mentioned earlier, the
petitionforannulmentofdeedofsaleinvolvespropertyandpropertyrights,andhence,
survives the death of petitioner Memoracion. The RTC was informed, albeit belatedly,
[13]
ofthedeathofMemoracion,andwassuppliedwiththenameandaddressofherlegal
representative, Edgardo Cruz. What the RTC could have done was to require Edgardo
CruztoappearincourtandsubstituteMemoracionaspartytothependingcase,pursuant
to Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, and established

jurisprudence.

We note that on 17 October 1997, Edgardo Cruz filed with the RTC a Manifestation,
[14]
statingthatheisretainingtheservicesofAtty.RobertoT.Neri.Wequote:

UNDERSIGNEDHEIRofthelateMemoracionZ.Cruzrespectfullymanifeststhatheis
retainingtheservicesofATTY.ROBERTOT.NERIascounselfortheplaintiff.

(Sgd.)EDGARDOZ.CRUZ
Plaintiff

[15]
ConsistentwithourrulinginHeirsofHabererv.CourtofAppeals,
weconsidersuch
Manifestation, signed by Memoracions heir, Edgardo Cruz, and retaining Atty. Neris
servicesascounsel,aformalsubstitutionof deceased Memoracion by her heir, Edgardo
Cruz. It also needs mention that Oswaldo Cruz, although also an heir of Memoracion,
shouldbeexcludedasalegalrepresentativeinthecaseforbeinganadversepartytherein.
[16]

WHEREFORE,weGRANTthepetition.WeREVERSEtheCourtofAppealsDecision
dated20December2005andResolutiondated21June2006inCAG.R.CVNo.80355.
We REMAND this case to the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial
Region,Branch30,Manila,forfurtherproceedings.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:


ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMINROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

JOSEC.MENDOZA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

*DesignatedadditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.882dated31August2010.
[1]
UnderRule45ofthe1997RevisedRulesofCivilProcedure.
[2]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeMagdangalM.DeLeon,withAssociateJusticesPortiaAlioHormachuelosandMariano
DelCastillo(nowamemberoftheSupremeCourt),concurring.
[3]
IssuedbyRTCJudgeSenecioO.Ortile.
[4]
Rollo,pp.3233.Citationsomitted.
[5]
Id.at39.
[6]
Id.at4344.
[7]
163Phil.516(1976).SeealsoTorresv.Rodellas,G.R.No.177836,4September2009,598SCRA390.
[8]
Id.at521,citingIronGateBankv.Brady,184U.S.665,22SCT529,46L.ed.739andWenberv.St.PaulCityCo.,97
Feb.140R.39C.C.A.79.
[9]
G.R.No.149787,18June2008,555SCRA53,60.

[10]
Bonillav.Barcena,supranote7at520521.Citationsomitted.
[11]
Sumaljagv.Literato,supranote9at62.
[12]
Records,pp.172173.
[13]
ThecounselslatefilingoftheNoticeofDeathofMemoracionZ.CruzwasnotquestionedbydefendantOswaldoCruz.
[14]
Records,p.196.
[15]
192Phil.62,73(1981).
[16]
InSumaljagv.Literato,supranote9,thedeceasedssister,althoughalegalheir,wasexcludedasalegalrepresentative
forbeingoneoftheadversepartiesinthependingcases.