Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 130 views

    G. R. NO. 190823, April 4, 2011 Domingo Carabeo, Petitioner. vs. Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco, Respondent. Ponente: Conchita Carpio Morales

    Uploaded by

    Mabelle Arellano
    1) Domingo Carabeo entered into a contract in 1990 to sell his rights to a 648 square meter parcel of land to Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco for 38,000 pesos. 2) After the case was submitted for decision, Carabeo passed away in 2001. His counsel did not inform the court of his death or request proper substitution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since the trial was completed before Carabeo's death, and the trial court was not informed, its judgment without substitution was still valid and binding on Carabeo's legal representatives. Furthermore, Carabeo's counsel had no authority to appeal after his death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G. R. NO. 190823, April 4, 2011 Domingo Carabeo, Petitioner. vs. Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco, Respondent. Ponente: Conchita Carpio Morales

    Uploaded by

    Mabelle Arellano
    130 views2 pages
    1) Domingo Carabeo entered into a contract in 1990 to sell his rights to a 648 square meter parcel of land to Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco for 38,000 pesos. 2) After the case was submitted for decision, Carabeo passed away in 2001. His counsel did not inform the court of his death or request proper substitution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since the trial was completed before Carabeo's death, and the trial court was not informed, its judgment without substitution was still valid and binding on Carabeo's legal representatives. Furthermore, Carabeo's counsel had no authority to appeal after his death.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    04 G.R. No. 190823

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Domingo Carabeo entered into a contract in 1990 to sell his rights to a 648 square meter parcel of land to Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco for 38,000 pesos. 2) After the case was submitted for decision, Carabeo passed away in 2001. His counsel did not inform the court of his death or request proper substitution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since the trial was completed before Carabeo's death, and the trial court was not informed, its judgment without substitution was still valid and binding on Carabeo's legal representatives. Furthermore, Carabeo's counsel had no authority to appeal after his death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    130 views2 pages

    G. R. NO. 190823, April 4, 2011 Domingo Carabeo, Petitioner. vs. Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco, Respondent. Ponente: Conchita Carpio Morales

    Uploaded by

    Mabelle Arellano
    1) Domingo Carabeo entered into a contract in 1990 to sell his rights to a 648 square meter parcel of land to Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco for 38,000 pesos. 2) After the case was submitted for decision, Carabeo passed away in 2001. His counsel did not inform the court of his death or request proper substitution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since the trial was completed before Carabeo's death, and the trial court was not informed, its judgment without substitution was still valid and binding on Carabeo's legal representatives. Furthermore, Carabeo's counsel had no authority to appeal after his death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G. R. NO.

    190823, April 4, 2011

    DOMINGO CARABEO,
    Petitioner.
    vs.
    SPOUSES NORBERTO and SUSAN DINGCO,
    Respondent.

    Ponente: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES


    Associate Justice

    FACTS:

    On July 10, 1990, Domingo Carabeo (petitioner)


    entered into a contract denominated as “Kasunduan sa
    Bilihan ng Karapatan sa Lupa. (kasunduan) with Spouses
    Norberto and Susan Dingco (respondents) whereby
    petitioner agreed to sell his rights over a 648 square meter
    parcel of unregistered land situated in PurokIII, Tugatog,
    Orani, Bataan to respondents for P38,000.

    After the case was submitted for decision or on January


    31, 2001, petitioner passed away. The records do not show
    that petitioner’s counsel informed Branch 1 of the Bataan
    RTC, where the complaint was lodged, of his death and that
    proper substitution was effected in accordance with Section
    16, Rule 3, Rules of Court.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the death of the petitioner and that the


    proper substitution was effected in accordance with the rule.

    RULING:

    In the present case, respondents are pursuing a


    property right arising from the kasunduan, whereas
    petitioner is invoking nullity of the kasunduan to protect his
    proprietary interest. Assuming arguendo, however, that
    the kasunduan is deemed void, there is a corollary obligation
    of petitioner to return the money paid by respondents, and
    since the action involves property rights, it survives.

    It bears noting that trial on the merits was already


    concluded before petitioner died. Since the trial court was
    not informed of petitioner’s death, it may not be faulted for
    proceeding to render judgment without ordering his
    substitution. Its judgment is thus valid and binding upon
    petitioner’s legal representatives or successors-in-interest,
    insofar as his interest in the property subject of the action is
    concerned.

    In another vein, the death of a client immediately


    divests the counsel of authority. Thus, in filing a Notice of
    Appeal, petitioner’s counsel of record had no personality to
    act on behalf of the already deceased client who, it bears
    reiteration, had not been substituted as a party after his
    death. The trial court’s decision had thereby become final
    and executory, no appeal having been perfected. The
    petition is denied.

    You might also like