Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 305 views

    44 DELA CRUZ v. JOAQUIN

    Uploaded by

    zane
    The case involved a complaint filed by Pedro Joaquin against the Dela Cruz spouses regarding ownership of a parcel of land. The trial court ruled in favor of Joaquin, finding he had exercised his right to repurchase the land. Joaquin then died. The issue was whether the trial court lost jurisdiction after Joaquin's death. The Supreme Court ruled that substitution of a deceased party is allowed under the rules of civil procedure to protect due process. As the heirs participated in the case and presented evidence, there was no violation of due process. Mere failure to formally substitute the deceased party is not enough to nullify a court's decision.

    Copyright:

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

    44 DELA CRUZ v. JOAQUIN

    Uploaded by

    zane
    305 views2 pages
    The case involved a complaint filed by Pedro Joaquin against the Dela Cruz spouses regarding ownership of a parcel of land. The trial court ruled in favor of Joaquin, finding he had exercised his right to repurchase the land. Joaquin then died. The issue was whether the trial court lost jurisdiction after Joaquin's death. The Supreme Court ruled that substitution of a deceased party is allowed under the rules of civil procedure to protect due process. As the heirs participated in the case and presented evidence, there was no violation of due process. Mere failure to formally substitute the deceased party is not enough to nullify a court's decision.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a complaint filed by Pedro Joaquin against the Dela Cruz spouses regarding ownership of a parcel of land. The trial court ruled in favor of Joaquin, finding he had exercised his right to repurchase the land. Joaquin then died. The issue was whether the trial court lost jurisdiction after Joaquin's death. The Supreme Court ruled that substitution of a deceased party is allowed under the rules of civil procedure to protect due process. As the heirs participated in the case and presented evidence, there was no violation of due process. Mere failure to formally substitute the deceased party is not enough to nullify a court's decision.

    Copyright:

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

    44 DELA CRUZ v. JOAQUIN

    Uploaded by

    zane
    The case involved a complaint filed by Pedro Joaquin against the Dela Cruz spouses regarding ownership of a parcel of land. The trial court ruled in favor of Joaquin, finding he had exercised his right to repurchase the land. Joaquin then died. The issue was whether the trial court lost jurisdiction after Joaquin's death. The Supreme Court ruled that substitution of a deceased party is allowed under the rules of civil procedure to protect due process. As the heirs participated in the case and presented evidence, there was no violation of due process. Mere failure to formally substitute the deceased party is not enough to nullify a court's decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Dela Cruz,

    vs.
    Pedro Joaquin
    G.R. No.162788 July 28, 2005

    FACTS:
    The case originated from a Complaint for the recovery of possession and
    ownership, the cancellation of title, and damages, filed by Pedro Joaquin against
    spouses Dela Cruz in the Regional Trial Court. It arose from the deed of sale
    executed on June 1974 with a right of repurchase after five (5) years executed in
    favor of the Spouses for the parcel of land on which according to the Spouses
    failed to exercise by Joaquin. On December 24, 1988, Joaquin died. However, on
    April 23, 1990, the RTC issued a decision in favor of Joaquin. The trial court
    declared that the parties had entered into a sale with a right of repurchase. It further
    held that respondent had made a valid tender of payment on two separate occasions
    to exercise his right of repurchase, thus, the petitioners were required to reconvey
    the property upon his payment. The decision was sustained by the CA, hence, the
    petition.
    Accordingly, the Spouses averred that the trial court lost jurisdiction over
    the case upon the death of Joaquin.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case upon the death
    of Pedro Joaquin.

    RULING:
    No. When a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not extinguished,
    the Rules of Court require a substitution of the deceased. The procedure is
    specifically governed by Section 16 of Rule 3. The rule on the substitution of
    parties was crafted to protect every party’s right to due process. The estate of the
    deceased party will continue to be properly represented in the suit through the duly
    appointed legal representative. A formal substitution by heirs is not necessary
    when as in the present case, they themselves voluntarily appear, participate in the
    case, and present evidence in defense of the deceased. These actions negate any
    claim that the right to due process was violated. The records of the present case
    contain a “Motion for Substitution of Party Plaintiff” filed before the CA. The rule
    on the substitution by heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due
    process. Thus, when due process is not violated, as when the right of the
    representative or heir is recognized and protected, noncompliance or belated
    formal compliance with the Rules cannot affect the validity of a promulgated
    decision. Mere failure to substitute for a deceased plaintiff is not a sufficient
    ground to nullify a trial court’s decision. The alleging party must prove that there
    was an undeniable violation of due process.

    You might also like