Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Spouses Berot v. Siapno - RODRIGUEZ

    Uploaded by

    Grafted Koala
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that the intestate estate of Macaria Berot was a proper party in the foreclosure case. When Macaria died in 2003, she could no longer be a respondent, but her death opened her estate to succession. Although the respondent initially filed against Macaria after her death, the petitioners did not object when the estate was later substituted as respondent. By fully participating in the case without objection, the petitioners waived any argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the estate.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Berot v. Siapno - RODRIGUEZ

    Uploaded by

    Grafted Koala
    31 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that the intestate estate of Macaria Berot was a proper party in the foreclosure case. When Macaria died in 2003, she could no longer be a respondent, but her death opened her estate to succession. Although the respondent initially filed against Macaria after her death, the petitioners did not object when the estate was later substituted as respondent. By fully participating in the case without objection, the petitioners waived any argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the estate.

    Original Title

    [72] Spouses Berot v. Siapno - RODRIGUEZ

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that the intestate estate of Macaria Berot was a proper party in the foreclosure case. When Macaria died in 2003, she could no longer be a respondent, but her death opened her estate to succession. Although the respondent initially filed against Macaria after her death, the petitioners did not object when the estate was later substituted as respondent. By fully participating in the case without objection, the petitioners waived any argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    31 views1 page

    Spouses Berot v. Siapno - RODRIGUEZ

    Uploaded by

    Grafted Koala
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that the intestate estate of Macaria Berot was a proper party in the foreclosure case. When Macaria died in 2003, she could no longer be a respondent, but her death opened her estate to succession. Although the respondent initially filed against Macaria after her death, the petitioners did not object when the estate was later substituted as respondent. By fully participating in the case without objection, the petitioners waived any argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Spouses Berot v.

    Siapno RATIO
    188944 | July 9, 2014 | SERENO, C.J Petitioners were correct when they argued that upon Macaria Berot’s death on 23
    June 2003, her legal personality ceased, and she could no longer be
    Digest By: RODRIGUEZ, Albert impleaded as respondent in the foreclosure suit. It is also true that her death
    opened to her heirs the succession of her estate, which in this case was an
    intestate succession. The CA, in fact, sustained petitioners’ position that a
    deceased person’s estate has no legal personality to be sued. Citing the
    TOPIC: Natural persons; birth and death; presumptions Court’s ruling in Ventura v. Militante, it correctly ruled that a decedent does
    not have the capacity to be sued and may not be made a defendant in a
    DOCTRINE: Civil Code Art. 42. - Civil Personality is extinguished by death. case.

    The effect of death upon the right and obligations of the deceased is When the respondent filed the foreclosure case on June 15, 2004 and impleaded
    determined by law, by contract and by will Macaria Berot as respondent, the latter had already passed away the previous
    year. In their answer to the complaint. Petitioners countered among others, that the
    trial court did not have jurisdiction over Macaria, because no summons was served
    FACTS on her, precisely for the reason that she already died. Thus, the respondents
    ● On May 23, 2002, Macaria Berot and spouses Rodolfo A. Berot and amended his complaint with leave of court and substituted the deceased by
    Lilia P. Berot obtained a loan from the Respondent in the sum of impleading her intestate estate and identified Rodolfo Berot as the estate’s
    250,000, payable within one year together with interest thereon at the representative
    rate of 2% per annum from that date until fully paid. As security for
    the loan, Macaria, appellant and Lilia mortgaged to appellee a portion, It can be gleaned from the records of the case that petitioners did not object
    consisting of 147 square meters, of that parcel of land with an area of when the estate of Macaria was impleaded as respondent in the foreclosure
    718 square meters. case. Petitioner Rodolfo Berot did not object either when the original
    ● On June 23, 2003, Macaria died. Because of the mortgagors’ default, Complaint was amended and respondent impleaded him as the administrator
    appellee filed an action against them for foreclosure of mortgage and of Macaria’s estate, in addition to his being impleaded as an individual respondent
    damages. The action was anchored on the averment that the mortgagors in the case. Furthermore, their full participation in the proceedings of the case can
    failed and refused to pay the sum of 250,000.00 plus the stipulated only be construed as a waiver of any objection to or defense of the trial court’s
    interest of 2% per month despite lapse of one year from May 23, 2002. supposed lack of jurisdiction over the estate
    ● The spouses Berot alleged that the contested property was the inheritance
    of the former from his deceased father, Pedro; that on said property RULING
    is their family home; that the mortgage is void as it was constituted over
    the family home without the consent of their children, who are the WHEREFORE, the CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 87995 sustaining the
    beneficiaries thereof; that their obligation is only joint; and that the lower RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 2004-0246-D is hereby AFFIRMED with the
    court has no jurisdiction over Macaria for the reason that no summons MODIFICATION that the obligation of petitioners and the estate of Macaria
    was served on her as she was already dead. Berot is declared as joint in nature.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the intestate estate
    of Macaria Berot as a proper party by waiver expressly or impliedly by voluntary
    appearance - NO

    You might also like