Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Held: Atty. Aceron, despite being the This case concerns the motion for
attorney-in-fact of the petitioners, is not a reconsideration of the court’s resolution
dated November 17, 1998 and motion to refer
the case to the Court en banc. In previous importantly, they have been unable to show
case, the Court voted two-two on the separate that there are exceptional reasons for us to
motions for reconsideration as a result of give due course to their second motions for
which the decision was affirmed. The Court reconsideration. Stripped of the arguments
noted in a resolution dated January 27, 1999 for referral of this incident to the Court en
that the movants have no legal personality to banc, the motions subject of this resolution
seek redress before the Court as their motion are nothing more but rehashes of the motions
to intervene was already denied and that the for reconsideration which have been denied
motion to refer the case to the Court en banc in the Resolution of November 17, 1998. To
is akin to a second MR which is prohibited. In be sure, the allegations contained therein
this motion, both respondents and have already been raised before and passed
intervenors prayed that the case be referred upon by this Court in the said Resolution.
to the Court en banc inasmuch as their earlier
MR was resolved by a vote of two-two, the Samaniego VS Aguila
required number to carry a decision under Facts:
the Constitution was not met.
Samaniego et. al. are tenants in a landholding
ISSUE that belongs to Salud Aguila. The land in
Whether or not the referral to the court en question was identified by the DAR-Region 2
banc partakes of the nature of a second as covered by the Operation Land Transfer
motion for reconsideration. Program of the government. Aguila, in behalf
of her children, filed a petition for exemption
from the coverage of P.D. No. 27. Samaniego
et. al. opposed the application on the ground
HELD that Aguila's transfer of the title to the lands
It is affirmative. The contention, therefore, to her children was in violation of the rules
that the Resolution of November 17, 1998 did and regulations of the DAR.The Regional
not dispose of the earlier MR of the Decision Director granted the application for
dated April 24, 1998 is flawed. Consequently, exemption. On appeal to the DAR, the
the present MR necessarily partakes of the decision was affirmed. However, on motion of
nature of a second motion for reconsideration petitioners, the DAR reversed its ruling and
which, according to the clear and denied Aguila’s application for exemption and
unambiguous language of Rule 56, Section 4, declared petitioners the rightful farmer-
in relation to Rule 52, Section 2, of the 1997 beneficiaries of the land. Aguila appealed to
Rules of Civil Procedure, is prohibited. True, the Office of the President which declared
there are exceptional cases when this Court that subject landholdings are not covered by
may entertain a second motion for the OLT program of the government pursuant
reconsideration, such as where there are to P.D. No. 27. Aguila et. al appealed to the
extraordinarily persuasive reasons. Even Court of Appeals, but their petition was
then, we have ruled that such second MRs dismissed on the ground that the Office of the
must be filed with express leave of court first President is an indispensable party to the
obtained. In this case, not only did movants case. Failure to implead said Office is fatal to
fail to ask for prior leave of court, but more
the petitioners' cause and, hence, should be The issue in this petition is whether
dismissed. petitioners Florendos, heirs of Adela Salindon
have the right to substitute the original
Issue: Whether the Office of the President is petitioner Adela Salindon. The original case
an indispensable party in an appeal from its is about the ejectment case filed by Adela
decision and, therefore, must be impleaded Salindon against William Vazquez and
pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure? Silverio Nicolas. The ejectment case
Held: originated from the Adela Salindon v. William
Vasquez and Silverio Nicolas case where the
No. Under Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of court adjudged the Vazquez and Nicolas as
Civil Procedure, an indispensable party is a the owner of the land bought by Salindon
party in interest without whom no final with the Philippines Homesite and Housing
determination can be had of an action Corporation. This was appealed by Salindon
without that party being impleaded. claiming that the parties are “squatters” and
Indispensable parties are those with such an that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
interest in the controversy that a final decree matter as the same is within the PHHC (now
would necessarily affect their rights, so that NHA).
the court cannot proceed without their
presence. "Interest", within the meaning of On December 11, 1976, Salindon died. There
this rule, should be material, directly in issue was, however, no substitution of party; hence
and to be affected by the decree, as Salindon continued to be the appellant in the
distinguished from a mere incidental interest appealed case. The deceased Salindon
in the question involved. On the other hand, a continued to be an adverse party. Meanwhile,
nominal or pro forma party is one who is after Salindon's death, her heirs settled her
joined as a plaintiff or defendant, not because estate and the subject lot were transferred
such party has any real interest in the subject with a new Transfer Certificate of Title to the
matter or because any relief is demanded, but petitioners.
merely because the technical rules of The petitioners challenge the proceeding in
pleadings require the presence of such party the Court of Appeals after the death of the
on the record. In the case at bar, even plaintiffappellant Adela Salindon. They are of
assuming that the Office of the President the opinion that since there was no legal
should have been impleaded by petitioner, it representative substituted for Salindon after
is clear that the Office of the President is her death, the appellate court lost its
merely a pro forma party, in the same way jurisdiction over the case and consequently,
that a respondent court is a pro forma party the proceedings in the said court are null and
in special civil actions for certiorari. Court of void.
Appeals is ORDERED to decide the case on the
merits with deliberate speed. ISSUE: Whether or not the court lost its
jurisdiction after the death of the original
Florendo VS Coloma plaintiff Adela Salindon?
FACTS: HELD: NO. There is no dispute that an
ejectment case survives the death of a party.
The supervening death of plaintiff-appellant
Salindon did not extinguish her civil Environment and Natural Resources
personality (Republic v. Bagtas, 6 SCRA 242; Secretary. His substitution in this petition by
Vda. de Haberes v. Court of Appeals, 104 the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C.
SCRA 534). Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon
proper motion. The complaint was instituted
Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the
provides: After a party dies and the claim is plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of
not thereby extinguished, the court shall the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the
order upon proper notice, the legal full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural
representative of the deceased to appear and resource treasure that is the country's virgin
to be substituted for the deceased within a tropical rainforests." The same was filed for
period of thirty (30) days or within such time themselves and others who are equally
as may be granted ... Section 16 of Rule 3 concerned about the preservation of said
provides: Whenever a party to a pending case resource but are "so numerous that it is
dies ... it shall be the duty of his attorney to impracticable to bring them all before the
inform the court promptly of such death ... Court." The minors further asseverate that
and to give the name and residence of the they "represent their generation as well as
executor, administrator, guardian or other generations yet unborn." Consequently, it is
legal representative of the deceased prayed for that judgment be rendered,
In the case at bar, Salindon's counsel after her ordering defendant to cancel all existing
death on December 11, 1976 failed to inform timber license agreements in the country.
the court of Salindon's death. The appellate Factoran filed a Motion to Dismiss the
court could not be expected to know or take complaint stating the plaintiffs have no cause
judicial notice of the death of Salindon of action against him and the issue is a
without the proper manifestation from political question which properly pertains to
Salindon's counsel. In such a case and the legislative or executive branches.
considering that the supervening death of Subsequently, respondent Judge issued an
appellant did not extinguish her civil order granting the motion to dismiss. The
personality; the appellate court was well respondent Judge ruled that the granting of
within its jurisdiction to proceed as it did the reliefs prayed for would impair contracts.
with the case. Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Oposa VS Factoran Rules of Court asking for rescission and
setting aside the dismissal order since the
FACTS respondent Judge gravely abused his
: discretion in dismissing the action.