SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213689. January 31, 2018.]
HEIRS OF THE LATE LOPE L. LEONIO, petitioners,vs. VICENTE PONCE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated31 January 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 213689 (Heirs of the Late Lope L. Leonio vs. Vicente Ponce). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review 1 filed by the Heirs of the Late Lope L. Leonio (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated December 13, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 01421-MIN, and its Resolution 3 dated July 18, 2014, denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The assailed decision granted the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by Vicente C. Ponce (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) and accordingly declared void the Decision dated May 21, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao Del Norte which granted the petition for issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title and the new owner's duplicate certificate of titles.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
An action for reconveyance was filed by respondent against Fidelita Hidalgo (Hidalgo), et al. before the RTC of Lanao del Norte, Branch 1, concerning 13 parcels of land. A motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription and/or laches was filed by therein defendants, but the same was denied by the RTC, prompting the latter to elevate the denial to the CA via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA granted the petition and ordered the complaint before the RTC dismissed. The CA decision became final on April 28, 2006 and a corresponding Entry of Judgment was thereafter issued. 4
On December 11, 2006, a Petition for Annulment of Judgment was filed by the respondent before the CA assailing the Decision dated May 21, 1997 of the RTC of Lanao del Norte, Branch 02. The assailed decision granted the petition therein filed by Lope L. Leonio, represented by Jesus B. Ostia, and accordingly ordered the issuance of new owner's duplicate of original certificates of title covering the said properties. 5
Joined as private respondents in the case before the CA are the Estate of the Late Jesus B. Ostia, Hidalgo, Mindanao Portland Cement Corporation (MPCC), and the Estate of the Late Lope L. Leonio.
In his petition, respondent alleged that he is the registered owner of three of the properties involved in the aforementioned action for reconveyance before Branch 01 of the RTC of Lanao del Norte. In seeking the annulment of the decision of the RTC, respondent submits that extrinsic fraud was attendant in the trial proceedings considering first, that there is deficient compliance with the requirement of publication, and second, no notice or summons were issued to him as the registered owner of the property. Respondent argues that since he was not notified of the proceedings, the trial court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person which thus renders the judgment rendered void. 6
On December 13, 2013, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision 7 granting the Petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The dispositive portion of which reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Annulment of Judgment is GRANTED. The Decision of the RTC (Branch 2) of Lanao del Norte granting the petition for issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title is declared VOID. The new titles issued in replacement of the allegedly lost owner's duplicate certificate titles are declared void. 8
In so ruling, the CA explained that what produced the effect of lack of jurisdiction was not the alleged deficient publication, as Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree does not require publication in the Official Gazette before the court could validly acquire jurisdiction, but rather that the certificates of title sought to be reconstituted were not lost but in the possession of the registered owner — the respondent. 9
Moreover, the CA held that by definition, extrinsic fraud pertains to an act committed outside of trial. Thus, while the use of forged or fake documents in the action for reconstitution before the RTC prevented the full adjudication of the case on the merits, the CA ruled that it cannot be considered as extrinsic fraud. 10
MPCC and the herein petitioners sought a reconsideration of the Decision dated December 13, 2013 but the CA denied it in its Resolution 11 dated July 18, 2014.
Thus, this petition for review for certiorari filed by the petitioners, submitting a lone issue for this Court's Resolution, to wit:
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE CA ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE ESTATE OF LOPE L. LEONIO. 12
Petitioners argue that jurisdiction has not been properly acquired over them by the CA considering that the summons were not served on them — "the Estate of the Late Lope L. Leonio," but instead upon the "Heirs of the Late Lope L. Leonio." Thus, they submit that the case against them should have been ordered dismissed.
Ruling of the Court
The Court is not persuaded.
Under the Civil Code, 13 the heirs succeed to all the rights and obligations of the decedent by the mere fact of his death. As such, by operation of law, the heirs of the deceased person are considered as the continuation of his personality. aScITE
Thus, while it is true that the estate of a deceased person has a juridical personality different from that of the heirs, the Court has recognized the right, as well as the legal personality of the heirs, to institute an action to represent the estate pending the institution of administration proceedings, or the appointment of an administrator of the estate. In the case of Rioferio, et al. v. CA, 14 the Court explained, viz.:
Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without doubt have legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil Code that (t)he rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. The provision in turn is the foundation of the principle that the property, rights and obligations to the extent and value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others by his will or by operation of law.
Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation, namely Section 3, Rule 3 and Section 2, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. In fact, in the case of Gochan v. Young, this Court recognized the legal standing of the heirs to represent the rights and properties of the decedent under administration pending the appointment of an administrator. Thus:
The above-quoted rules, while permitting an executor or administrator to represent or to bring suits on behalf of the deceased, do not prohibit the heirs from representing the deceased. These rules are easily applicable to cases in which an administrator has already been appointed. But no rule categorically addresses the situation in which special proceedings for the settlement of an estate have already been instituted, yet no administrator has been appointed. In such instances, the heirs cannot be expected to wait for the appointment of an administrator; then wait further to see if the administrator appointed would care enough to file a suit to protect the rights and the interests of the deceased; and in the meantime do nothing while the rights and the properties of the decedent are violated or dissipated. 15 (Citations omitted and emphasis in the original).
In this controversy, no estate proceedings have been instituted. 16 Petitioners themselves alleged in their Comment/Opposition (to the petition for annulment of judgment) that:
[t]he late Lope Leonio left no will and no properties, rights and obligations to be distributed among the heirs. There was no inheritance to be divided among the heirs such that there was no need for the institution of a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the late Lope Leonio. 17
It is in view of this manifestation on the part of the petitioners that the CA issued its Resolution 18 dated July 17, 2008, ordering the respondent to furnish the court with the names and addresses of the all the petitioners.
In this light therefore, the heirs can properly be regarded as a substitute for the decedent and may represent the latter in protection of the interest that has passed on to them upon their predecessor's death. 19 Accordingly, by virtue of the summons served upon the petitioners, the CA validly acquired jurisdiction over the "Estate of Lope L. Leonio" therein named as respondent.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 13, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 01421-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-16.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, with Associate Justices Renato C. Francisco and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, concurring; id. at 18-32.
3.Id. at 33-35.
4.Id. at 19.
5.Id. at 19, 22.
6.Id. at 22.
7.Id. at 18-32.
8.Id. at 32.
9.Id. at 27-29.
10. Id. at 28-30.
11. Id. at 33-35.
12. Id. at 13-14.
13. CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Articles 774, 777.
Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.
Art. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
14. 464 Phil. 67 (2004).
15. Id. at 73-75.
16. Rollo, pp. 79-84.
17. Id. at 60.
18. Id. at 72-73.
19. Pasco, et al. v. Heirs of De Guzman, 639 Phil. 356, 370 (2010).