Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Heirs of Francisca Medrano v.

De Vera
GR No. 165770 | August 9, 2010

Doctrine: In cases where the subject property is transferred by the defendant during
the pendency of the litigation, the interest of the transferee pendente lite cannot be
considered independent of the interest of his transferors. If the transferee files an
answer while the transferor is declared in default, the case should be tried on the
basis of the transferee's answer and with the participation of the transferee.

Facts: This case is about a parcel of land in the name of De Gracia. She died intestate,
leaving her half-sisters Hilaria and Elena as compulsory heirs. In 1982, Hilaria and
Elena executed a private document which waived all their hereditary rights to
Flaviana’s land in favor of Medrano. In that same year, Medrano built her bungalow
on the land without objection from Hilaria and Elena. When the two died, some of
their children affirmed the contents of the private document. They executed
separate Deeds of Confirmation of Private Document and Renunciation of Rights in
favor of Medrano.

Since the other children refused to sign a similar renunciation, Medrano filed a
complaint in 2001 for quieting of title, reconveyance, reformation of instrument
and/or partition with damages against Pelagia, Faustina, Jesus, Francisca and
Estrellita.

In 2002, respondent De Vera filed an Answer with Counterclaim. He presented


himself as the real party-in-interest since some of the named defendants (Pelagia,
Faustina, Francisca, Jesus, Estrellita and Elena Alvarado) executed a Deed of
Renunciation of Rights in his favor. He maintained that the private document
executed by the defendant’s predecessors in favor of Medrano was null and void for
want of consideration.

Medrano filed a Motion to Expunge Answer with Counterclaim and to declare


defendants in default. She argued that De Vera had no personality to answer the
complaint since he wasn’t authoritzed by the named defendants to answer in their
behalf.

The RTC admitted De Vera’s answer with counterclaim. The TC said that De Vera
didn’t need an SPA since he didn’t answer the complaint in their behalf. De Vera
made a voluntary appearance in the case as the transferee of the defendant’s rights
to the subject property. In the same Order, it declared the named defendants in
default for not answering the complaint despite valid service of summons.

Medrano filed a Motion to Set Reception of Evidence before the Branch Clerk of
Court, with regard to the part of the order declaring the named defendants in
default. She also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order, asking the court to
order De Vera to file a pleading in intervention so that he could be properly named
as defendant in the case.

The trial court resolved to grant Medrano’s Motion to Set Reception of Evidence.
Medrano presented her evidence ex parte and the case was submitted for
resolution.

The RTC declared Medrano (substituted by her heirs) as the rightful and lawful
owner of the land. It ruled that ownership over the titled property has vested in the
petitioners because of good faith possession for more than 10 years, so it was no
longer necessary to compel the defendants (the heirs of Hilaria and Elena) to
execute an instrument to confirm Medrano’s rightful ownership over the land.

The RTC also ruled that the private document (Tapno Maamoan Ti Sangalobongan)
sufficiently conveyed to Medrano the subject property.

De Vera filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that he was an indispensable


party who wasn’t given an opportunity to present his own evidence. He maintained
that Medrano was not the owner of the property but a mere administratrix of the
land. This motion was denied because De Vera did not file a pleading-in-
intervention.

De Vera filed a Manifestation stating his intention to file a petition for certiorari and
mandamus before the Ca. The petitioners then filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment
and Execution, and they also filed a Counter-Manifestation, stating that De Vera (as a
transferee pendente lite) was bound by the final judgment or decree rendered
against his transferors.

The RTC ruled that De Vera was still not a party to the suit, so his appeal would not
stay the finality and execution of the judgment. De Vera appealed to the CA.

The CA ruled for De Vera. HtP.

Issue: W/N De Vera could participate in the case without filing a motion to
intervene - YES.

The SC held that De Vera’s interest in the case was not independent of or severable
from the interest from the named defendants because he is a transferee pendente
lite of the named defendants by virtue of the Deed of Renunciation of Rights
that was executed in his favor. His rights were derived from the named
defendants and as transferee pendente lite, he would be bound by any
judgement against his transferors under the rules of res judicata. So his
interest cannot be considered and tried separately from the interest of the
named defendants.

It was wrong for the trial court to have tried Medrano’s case against the named
defendants (by allowing Medrano to present evidence ex parte against them) after it
had already admitted De Vera’s answer. What the trial court should have done is to
treat De Vera (as transferee pendente lite) as having been joined as party-defendant
and to try the case on the basis of the answer De Vera had filed and with De Vera’s
participation.

The basis for allowing De Vera to join the original defendants as transferee
pendente lite is found in Rule 3, Section 19 of the Rules of Court. The provision
gives the trial court the discretion to allow or disallow the substitution or
joinder by the transferee. Such discretion is permitted since in general, the
transferee’s interest is deemed by law as adequately represented and protected by
the participation of his transferors and in legal contemplation he is not really denied
protection since his interest is the same as his transferors who are already parties to
the case. However, the paramount consideration should be the protection of the
parties’ interests and their rights to due process.

In the instant case, the circumstances demanded that the trial court exercise its
discretion in favor of allowing De Vera to join the action. It should be remembered
that the trial court already admitted De Vera’s answer when it declared the original
defendants in default. Since there was a transferee pendente lite whose answer had
already been admitted, the trial court should have tried the case on the basis of that
answer (based on Rule 9, Section 3 (c)).

Therefore, the default of the original defendants shouldn’t result in the ex parte
presentation of evidence since De Vera filed an answer.

There was no need for De Vera to file a motion to intervene. The purpose of
intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party in order for him
to protect his interest and for the court to settle all conflicting claims. But in the
instant case, De Vera is not a stranger to the action but a transferee pendente lite. As
previously mentioned, a transferee pendente lite is deemed joined in the pending
action from the moment when the transfer of interest is perfected. His participation
in the case should have been allowed by due process considerations.

Вам также может понравиться