THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252127. June 23, 2021.]
HEIRS OF SPS. AURELIO AND MARCELINA BALLESTEROS, NAMELY: AURORA C. BALLESTEROS, ALEXANDER BALLESTEROS, ALBERTO BALLESTEROS AND AURELIO BALLESTEROS, JR., petitioners, vs.HEIRS OF MAMERTO D. CRUZ, NAMELY: MA. CHRISTINA AGUSTIN, MA. CAMILLE CRUZ AND CHESTER CRUZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252127 (Heirs of Sps. Aurelio and Marcelina Ballesteros, namely: Aurora C. Ballesteros, Alexander Ballesteros, Alberto Ballesteros and Aurelio Ballesteros, Jr. v. Heirs of Mamerto D. Cruz, namely: Ma. Christina Agustin, Ma. Camille Cruz and Chester Cruz). — Acting on the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and on the Comment 2 filed in compliance with the Court's Resolution 3 dated September 2, 2020, the Court resolves to deny the petition for failure to show any substantial, special or important reason to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction to review the challenged Decision 4 dated July 24, 2019 and Resolution 5 dated February 4, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149575.
The CA did not err in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment 6 filed by the Heirs of Spouses Aurelio and Marcelina Ballesteros, namely: Aurora C. Ballesteros, Alexander Ballesteros, Alberto Ballesteros and Aurelio Ballesteros, Jr. (petitioners), that sought to nullify the Judgment 7 dated June 30, 2016 issued by Branch 3, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City in Civil Case No. 5450 for "Annulment of Deed of Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-113081, Reconveyance and Damages." Contrary to the petitioners' assertions, there was no deprivation of their right to due process and the Judgment 8 dated June 30, 2016 was rendered within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Under Section 16, 9 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, in case of death of a party, and upon proper notice by counsel, it is the duty of the court to order the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased. Here, it is undisputed that the RTC was never notified of the deaths of Spouses Aurelio and Marcelina Ballesteros (Spouses Ballesteros) by their counsel of record, Atty. Ephraim Lasam (Atty. Lasam). 10 The trial court cannot be expected to know or take judicial notice of the death of a party without the proper manifestation from counsel; thus, it is well within its jurisdiction to proceed, 11 as the RTC did in the instant case.
It is likewise settled that the failure of counsel to comply with his duty under Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court to inform the trial court of the death of his client and the non-substitution of such party will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment thereon if the action survives the death of such party. 12 Verily, the trial proceedings in this case and the RTC Judgment 13 dated June 30, 2016 are valid inasmuch as Atty. Lasam did not comply with his duty to notify the RTC of the deaths of Spouses Ballesteros in order to cause the substitution of the petitioners for the deceased parties. IDaEHC
As the CA aptly pointed out, Spouses Ballesteros were not denied due process during the proceedings before the RTC. Marcelina Ballesteros, who was then duly represented by Atty. Lasam, was able to actively participate during the trial up until the case was submitted for decision on December 1, 2011. 14
In any case, petitioners admitted that Aurelio Ballesteros, Jr., son of the Spouses Ballesteros, received the mail containing a copy of the RTC Judgment 15 on July 26, 2016 but failed to act on it until September 2016. 16 Consequently, it was through petitioners' own negligence that the RTC Judgment 17 became final and executor, without them filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 24, 2019 and the Resolution dated February 4, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 149575 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (LEONEN, J., on official leave. HERNANDO, J., Acting Chairperson.)
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-47.
2.Id. at 205-213.
3.Id. at 180.
4.Id. at 8-13; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
5.Id. at 22-23; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
6.Id. at 90-106,
7.Id. at 107-126; penned by Judge Marivic A. Cacatian-Beltran.
8.Id.
9. SECTION 16. Death of Party; Duty of Counsel. — Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
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 guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. (Rules of Court, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended, [April 8, 1997])
10.Rollo, p. 52.
11.Saligumbav. Palanog, 593 Phil. 420, 430 (2008).
12.Id. at 431.
13.Rollo, pp. 107-126.
14.Id. at 52.
15.Id. at 107-126.
16.Id. at 34-35.
17.Id. at 107-126.