4
THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 79416, September 05, 1989] ROSALINA BONIFACIO, SURVIVING WIFE; AND CHILDREN GABRIEL, PONCIANO, TIBURCIO, BEATRIZ, GENEROSA, SILVERIA, LEONARDO, FELOMENA, ENCARNACION AND LEONILA, ALL SURNAMED BONIFACIO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. NATIVIDAD G. DIZON, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS, BRANCH XIII, MALOLOS, BULACAN AND PASTORA SAN MIGUEL, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N FERNAN, C.J.: The issue raised in the instant petition for certiorari certified to us by the Court of Appeals in its resolution [1] dated November 28, 1986 in CA-G.R. SP No. 10033 as involving a pure question of law is phrased by petitioners, thus: "WHETHER OR NOT, THE FAVORABLE JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY THE DECEDENT IS INHERITED BY THE COMPULSORY HEIRS, THEREBY VESTING TO THE LATTER, ALL THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE JUDGMENT TO (sic) THE DECEDENT." [2] The favorable judgment adverted to by petitioners traces its origin to the complaint filed on July 1, 1968 by Olimpio Bonifacio before the then Court of Agrarian Relations, Fifth Regional District, Branch I-A of Baliwag, Bulacan, seeking the ejectment of private respondent Pastora San Miguel from Bonifacio's two-hectare agricultural land situated at Patubig, Marilao, Bulacan and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-27298. The ground relied upon therefor was personal cultivation under Section 36 (1) of R. A. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code (CAR Case No. 2160-B ‘68). After trial on the merits, judgment was rendered therein on September 18, 1970 by Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio: "1. Granting authority to plaintiff OLIMPIO BONIFACIO to eject defendant PASTORA SAN MIGUEL from the landholding in question situated at Patubig, Marilao, Bulacan with an area of two (2) hectares, more or less, and consequently, ordering said defendant to vacate the same landholding and deliver possession thereof to said plaintiff for the latter's personal cultivation, subject to the provisions of Section 25 of R. A. 3844; and "2. Dismissing all other claims and counterclaims of the parties." [3] On appeal by private respondent Pastora San Miguel, the Court of Appeals [4] modified said judgment with respect to her counterclaim by ordering Olimpio Bonifacio to pay her the amount of P1,376.00. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. [5] Still dissatisfied, private respondent Pastora San Miguel sought relief from this Court. During the pendency of her petition, on August 7, 1983, Olimpio Bonifacio died. As no notice of such death was given to the Court, no order for the substitution of his heirs was made. On July 31, 1985, the Court En Banc resolved to deny private respondent's petition for lack of merit and to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. [6] Subsequently, petitioners Rosalina Bonifacio, as surviving wife, and Gabriel, Ponciano, Tiburcio, Beatriz, Generosa, Silveria, Leonardo, Felomena, Encarnacion and Leonila all

7. Bonifacio vs. Dizon

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

7. Bonifacio vs. Dizon

Citation preview

THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 79416, September 05, 1989] ROSAINA !ONI"A#IO, S$RVIVING %I"&' AND #HIDR&N GA!RI&, (ON#IANO, TI!$R#IO, !&ATRI), G&N&ROSA, SIV&RIA, &ONARDO, "&O*&NA, &N#ARNA#ION AND &ONIA, A S$RNA*&D !ONI"A#IO, (&TITION&RS, VS. HON. NATIVIDAD G. DI)ON, (R&SIDING +$DG& O" TH& R&GIONA TRIA #O$RT O" *AOOS, !RAN#H ,III, *AOOS, !$A#AN AND (ASTORA SAN *IG$&, R&S(OND&NTS. D & # I S I O N "&RNAN, #.+.-The issue raised in the instant petition for certiorari certified to us by the Court of Appeals in itsresolution[1]datedNovember 28, 198inCA!"#$# %&No# 1''((asinvolvin)apure *uestion of la+ is phrased by petitioners, thus,-./0T/0$ 1$ N1T, T/0 2A31$A450 678"90NT 14TA:N08 4; T/0 80C080NT :% :N/0$:T08 4; T/0 C19&75%1$; /0:$%, T/0$04; 30%T:N" T1 T/0 5ATT0$, A55 T/0 $:"/T% C1N20$$08 4; T/0 678"90NT T1 ud)ment adverted to by petitioners traces its ori)in to the complaint filed on 6uly 1, 198 by 1limpio 4onifacio before the then Court of A)rarian $elations, 2ifth $e)ional8istrict, 4ranch :!A of 4ali+a), 4ulacan, see?in) the e>ectment of private respondent &astora %an 9i)uel from4onifacio@s t+o!hectare a)ricultural land situated at &atubi), 9arilao,4ulacan and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No# T!2A298# The )round relied upon therefor +as personal cultivation under %ection ( ud)ment +ithrespect toher counterclaimbyorderin)1limpio4onifaciotopayher the amount of &1,(A#''#The >ud)ment +as affirmed in all other respects#[D]%till dissatisfied, private respondent &astora %an 9i)uel sou)ht relief from this Court# 8urin) the pendency of her petition, on Au)ust A, 198(, 1limpio 4onifacio died#As no notice of such death +as )iven to the Court, no order for the substitution of his heirs +as made#1n 6uly (1, 198D, the Court 0n 4anc resolved to deny private respondent@s petition for lac? of merit and to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals#[]%ubse*uently, petitioners $osalina 4onifacio, as survivin) +ife, and "abriel, &onciano,Tiburcio, 4eatriF, "enerosa, %ilveria, 5eonardo, 2elomena, 0ncarnacion and 5eonila allsurnamed 4onifacio, as children and heirs of 1limpio 4onifacio, moved for the eGecution of thedecisioninCA$CaseNo# 21'!4C8beforetherespondent $e)ionalTrial Court of 4ulacan#A +rit of eGecution +as issued on 2ebruary 2', 198 and on 9arch , 198, the 8eputy%heriff submittedhis$eport ect matter of the action to $osalina 4onifacio as survivin) +ife of 1limpio 4onifacio#Thereafter,private respondent&astora %an 9i)uelmoved to*uash the +ritofeGecution# This +as opposed by petitioners +ho in turn sou)ht the issuance of a +rit of demolition and anorder declarin)&astora%an9i)uel incontempt of court for alle)edlyre!enterin)the sub>ect land#After hearin), respondent 6ud)e Natividad "# 8iFon issued a resolution on 6uly 1D, 198, the dispositive portion of +hich reads,-./0$021$0, the implementation of the +rit of eGecution of the 8ecision dated %eptember 18, 19A' made by the %heriff of this Court, per directive contained in our 1rder of 2ebruary 18, 198, isherebydeclarednull andvoidE the-9otionfor8emolition-filedbyplaintiff is hereby deniedE and, the -&etition for Contempt- li?e+ise denied#-%1 1$80$08#-[A]&etitioners assail this resolution in the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals, +hich as stated earlier, +as certified to us pursuant to %ection 9 ectment case but an a)rarian case for the e>ectment of an a)riculturallessee# %he theoriFes that the ri)ht bein) asserted in the action is personalto 1limpio4onifacio, +hichnecessarilydied+ithhim# %hefurther contendsthat thenon!substitution of 1limpio 4onifacio by his heirs rendered the proceedin)s ta?en after his death null and void# %he also points to certain supervenin) events +hich alle)edly prohibit eGecution of the >ud)ment in CA$ Case No# 21'!4 C8, to +it,the amendment of %ection ( ud)ment in CA$ Case No# 21'!4 C8#$ules of procedure ma?e it the duty of the attorney to inform the court promptly of his client@s death, incapacity or incompetency durin) the pendency of the action and to )ive the name and residence of his eGecutor, administrator, )uardian or other le)al representative#[9] :n case of a party@s death, the court, if the action survives, shallthen order upon proper notice the le)al representatives of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased +ithin a period of (' days or +ithin such time as may be )ranted#[1']:nthecaseat bar, 1limpio4onifacio@sdeathdurin)thependencyofprivaterespondent@s petition +as not communicated to the Court#As ruled by this Court in the case of 2lorendo, 6r# vs# Coloma, supra, involvin) substantially the same facts and issue,-G G G The petitioners challen)e the proceedin) in the Court of Appeals after the death of the plaintiff!appellantAdela%alindon# Theyareof theopinionthat sincethere+asnole)al representative substituted for %alindon after her death, the appellate court lost its >urisdiction over the case and conse*uently, the proceedin)s in the said court are nulland void#This ar)ument is +ithout merit#-There is no dispute that an e>ectment case survives the death of a party#The supervenin) deathof plaintiff!appellant %alindon did not eGtin)uish her civil personality ud)e acted +ith )rave abuse of discretion in havin) done so#The +rit prayed for should issue#%H&R&"OR&, thepetitionis"$ANT08# Theassailedresolutiondated6uly1D, 198is hereby set aside#The immediate eGecution of the decision in CA$ Case No# 21'!4 C8 is ordered#This decision is immediately eGecutory#No pronouncement as to costs#SO ORD&R&D.Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur#Feliciano, J., on leave#