Pacific Rehouse Corporation vs. Ngo PDF

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 789 17/02/2019, 1)46 PM
G.R. No. 214934. April 12, 2016.*
PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

JOVEN L. NGO, as represented by OSCAR J. GARCIA,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Substitution of Parties;

Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows the substitution of a
party-litigant who dies during the pendency of a case by his heirs,
provided that the claim subject of said case is not extinguished by
his death.·Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows the
substitution of a party-litigant who dies during the pendency of a
case by his heirs, provided that the claim subject of said case
is not extinguished by his death. As early as in Bonilla v.
Barcena, 71 SCRA 491 (1976), the Court has settled that if the
claim in an action affects property and property rights, then the
action survives the death of a party-litigant, viz.: The question as to
whether an action
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
309
VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 309

Pacific Rehouse Corporation vs. Ngo
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f9fbdc98fe6b9317003600fb002c009e/p/ATP184/?username=Guest Page 1 of 17
survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the

damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive the
wrong complained affects primarily and principally
property and property rights, the injuries to the person
being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which do
not survive the injury complained of is to the person, the property
and rights of property affected being incidental.
Same; Same; Consolidation of Cases; Case law states that
consolidation of cases, when proper, results in the simplification of
proceedings, which saves time, the resources of the parties and the
courts, and a possible major abbreviation of trial; Likewise, it avoids
the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the courts in
two (2) or more cases which would otherwise require a single
judgment.·In sum, the CA erred in dismissing Civil Case No.
2031-08 based solely on BautistaÊs death. As such, it should be
reinstated and consolidated with LRC Case No. 1117-09,
considering that the two cases involve the same property and, as
correctly opined by the court a quo, any adjudication in either case
would necessarily affect the other. In this relation, case law states
that consolidation of cases, when proper, results in the
simplification of proceedings, which saves time, the resources of the
parties and the courts, and a possible major abbreviation of trial. It
is a desirable end to be achieved, within the context of the present
state of affairs where court dockets are full and individual and state
finances are limited. It contributes to the swift dispensation of
justice, and is in accord with the aim of affording the parties a just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of their cases before the
courts. Likewise, it avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions
being rendered by the courts in two or more cases which would
otherwise require a single judgment.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Defensor, Enrile & De Mata for petitioner.
Miriam S. Clorina for respondent.
310
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the

Decision2 dated March 20, 2014 and the Resolution3 dated
October 8, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R.
S.P. No. 122222, which set aside the Omnibus Order4 dated
April 7, 2011 and the Order5 dated September 30, 2011 of
the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 20 (RTC),
in consolidated Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case
No. 1117-09 and consequently dismissed the complaint for
specific performance and damages docketed as Civil Case
No. 2031-08.
The Facts
On February 17, 1994, petitioner Pacific Rehouse

Corporation (petitioner) entered into a Deed of Conditional
Sale6 with Benjamin G. Bautista (Bautista) for the
purchase of a 52,341-square-meter parcel of land located in
Imus, Cavite and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-800 issued by the Registry of Deeds of the
Province of Cavite (subject property), for a total
consideration of P7,327,740.00. Under the contract,
petitioner was to make a down payment of P2,198,322.00
upon its execution, with the balance to be paid upon
completion by Bautista of the pertinent documents
necessary for the transfer of the said property.7
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 30-49.

2 Id., at pp. 51-65. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with
Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Romeo F. Barza,
concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 67-68.
4 Id., at pp. 213-216. Penned by Presiding Judge Fernando L. Felicen.
5 Id., at pp. 258-259.
6 Id., at pp. 78-80.
7 Id.
311
VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 311

However, despite receipt of payment in the total amount

of P6,598,322.00 and repeated offers to pay the balance in
full, Bautista failed and refused to comply with his
obligation to execute the corresponding deed of absolute
sale and deliver the certificate of title of the subject
property, and even sold the property to another buyer.8
Hence, on April 30, 2008, petitioner filed a complaint9 for
specific performance and damages against Bautista,
docketed as Civil Case No. 2031-08, praying for the
delivery of a deed of transfer and other documents
necessary to transfer the title in its favor, as well as the
OwnerÊs Copy of TCT No. T-800.10 Further, on May 9, 2008,
petitioner caused the annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens
on TCT No. T-800 under Entry No. 940511 in order to
protect its rights over the subject property pending
litigation.12
After the parties had filed their respective responsive
pleadings,13 the case was set for pretrial. However, before
the same could proceed, BautistaÊs counsel filed a
Manifestation and Notice of Death14 informing the RTC
that Bautista had died on February 14, 2009. Thus, in an
Order15 dated May 19, 2009, the RTC directed BautistaÊs
counsel to substitute the latterÊs heirs and/or
representatives in the action pursuant to Section 16, Rule 3
of the Rules of Court. Unfortunately, said counsel failed to
comply due to lack of personal knowledge of
_______________
8 Id., at pp. 116-117.

9 Id., at pp. 115-118.
10 Id., at p. 118.
11 Id., at p. 148.
12 Id., at p. 52.
13 Id., at pp. 156-160 (Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim dated

July 21, 2008), pp. 161-162 (Reply dated August 8, 2008),
pp. 163-166 (Supplemental Answer dated September 26, 2008), and pp.
167-170 (Answer/Reply to DefendantÊs Supplemental Answer dated
October 8, 2008).
14 Id., at pp. 154 and 171.
15 Id., at p. 173.
312

the identities of the heirs of Bautista and their

respective residences.16
On the other hand, petitioner manifested that it had
located BautistaÊs surviving spouse, Rosita Bautista, and as
a result, was directed to amend the complaint to implead
her as such.17 For failure of petitioner to comply with the
foregoing directive, however, the RTC issued an Order18
dated February 23, 2010 dismissing Civil Case No.
2031-08 pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of
Court.
Upon petitionerÊs motion for reconsideration,19 the RTC
issued an Order20 dated September 20, 2010 setting
aside its earlier Order dismissing Civil Case No. 2031-08.
However, it held in abeyance the proceedings in said case
until petitioner procures the appointment of an executor or
administrator for the estate of Bautista pursuant to Section
16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.21
Meanwhile, on May 6, 2009, respondent Joven L. Ngo,
represented22 by Oscar J. Garcia (respondent), filed a
Verified Petition for Cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens23
against petitioner and the Register of Deeds of the Province
of Cavite before the RTC, docketed as LRC Case No. 1117-
09. Respondent alleged, inter alia, that on July 23, 2007,
Bautista obtained a loan from him in the amount of
P8,000,000.00 secured by a real estate mortgage over the
subject property, and that the mortgage was registered
with the Registry of Deeds of Cavite and annotated on TCT

No. T-800 on July 24, 2007.24 Upon BautistaÊs default, the
mortgage was foreclosed
_______________
16 Id., at pp. 185-186.

17 Id., at p. 186.
18 Id., at p. 184.
19 Dated March 30, 2010. Id., at pp. 185-188.
20 Id., at pp. 211-212.
21 Id., at p. 212; pp. 52-53.
22 Id., at pp. 144-145.
23 Id., at pp. 139-143.
24 Id., at p. 147.
313
VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 313

and the subject property was sold at a public auction,

with respondent emerging as the highest bidder.
Accordingly, a Certificate of Sale25 was issued in his favor,
which was likewise registered and annotated26 on TCT No.
T-800 on January 27, 2009. According to respondent, it was
only on May 9, 2008 that he discovered petitionerÊs claimed
interest over the subject property when he saw the latterÊs
Notice of Lis Pendens in TCT No. T-800 under Entry No.
9405.27 In view of the said averments, respondent
contended that Entry No. 9405 should be removed. He
maintained that petitioner was aware of the real estate
mortgage that was annotated on TCT No. T-800 in his favor
as early as July 24, 2007 and that petitioner may no longer
recover the subject property, considering that Bautista had
lost ownership thereof when it was sold at a public auction
and a certificate of sale was issued in respondentÊs favor.28
On February 11, 2010, TCT No. T-132274829 was issued in
his name with Entry No. 9405 carried over as an
annotation.
In its opposition to LRC Case No. 1117-09,30 petitioner
countered that respondent was not a mortgagee in good
faith, having knowledge of the sale of the subject property
to petitioner as early as November 2007 or even prior to the
foreclosure proceedings.31 Likewise, asserting that the
petition for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens should
have been filed instead in Civil Case No. 2031-08 and not
in a land registration case where the RTC exercised limited
jurisdiction, petitioner moved for the consolidation of Civil
Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09.32
_______________
25 Id., at p. 284.
26 Id., at p. 279.
27 Id., at p. 140.
28 Id., at p. 141; p. 53.
29 Id., at pp. 287-288.
30 Id., at pp. 175-177.
31 Id., at p. 176.
32 Id., at p. 53.
314

In an Order33 dated February 24, 2010, the RTC denied

petitionerÊs motion to consolidate Civil Case No. 2031-08
and LRC Case No. 1117-09, holding that while both cases
involved the same property and, as such, would adversely
affect their respective claims, the former case had already
been dismissed in an Order dated February 23, 2010.34
Thereafter, on November 3, 2010, respondent filed an
Urgent Motion for Cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens35
praying for the cancellation of Entry No. 9405 carried over
to TCT No. T-1322748. Petitioner opposed the said urgent
motion36 and reiterated its prayer for the consolidation of
Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09.37

In an Omnibus Order38 dated April 7, 2011 (April 7,
2011 Omnibus Order), the RTC denied respondentÊs motion
for being premature and for lack of legal basis, and instead,
ordered the consolidation of Civil Case No. 2031-08 and
LRC Case No. 1117-09. The RTC ruled that while it had
initially denied the consolidation, it was premised on an
order of dismissal that was subsequently set aside.39 In this
regard, the RTC opined that the consolidation was
necessary in order to fully adjudicate the issues of the two
cases, noting that the outcome in Civil Case No. 2031-08
would adversely affect LRC Case No. 1117-09 which
involved the same subject property; conversely, a decision
in the latter case wouldpreempt the outcome of the former
case. Further, the RTC ruled that Civil Case No. 2031-08
would survive BautistaÊs death since it primarily involved
property and property rights. Thus, the RTC directed
petitioner to comply with its previous Order dated
September 20, 2010 to procure the ap-
_______________
33 Id., at pp. 189-190.

34 Id., at p. 53.
35 Id., at pp. 191-197.
36 Id., at pp. 198-200.
37 Id., at p. 54.
38 Id., at pp. 213-216.
39 Id., at p. 214.
315
VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 315

pointment of an administrator pursuant to Section 16,

Rule 3 of the Rules of Court within a period of thirty (30)
days.40
RespondentÊs motion for reconsideration41 therefrom was
denied in an Order42 dated September 30, 2011.

Accordingly, in compliance with the April 7, 2011
Omnibus Order, petitioner filed on July 20, 2011 a
petition43 for the appointment of an administrator over the
estate of Bautista before the RTC, docketed as Sp. Proc.
Case No. 1075-11. Finding the petition to be sufficient in
form and substance, the RTC issued a Notice of Hearing44
dated September 12, 2011, setting the case for initial
hearing on November 14, 2011.45
On November 8, 2011, respondent filed an Omnibus
Motion to Dismiss46 Sp. Proc. Case No. 1075-11 on the
grounds that: (a) the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case, over the person of BautistaÊs
surviving spouse, and over his person;47 (b) the petition
failed to state a proper cause of action;48 (c) petitioner
failed to comply with Rule 78 of the Rules of Court;49 and
(d) the petition violated the rule on forum shopping and
litis pendentia.50
Thereafter, respondent also filed on December 2, 2011 a
petition for certiorari51 before the CA, docketed as C.A.-
G.R. S.P.
_______________
40 Id., at p. 54.
41 See Omnibus and Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated June
21, 2011; id., at pp. 217-235.
42 Id., at pp. 258-259.
43 Id., at pp. 149-153.
44 Id., at p. 293. Signed by Clerk of Court V Allan Sly M. Marasigan.
45 Id., at pp. 54-55.
46 Id., at pp. 267-276.
47 Id., at p. 269.
48 Id., at p. 270.
49 Id., at p. 271.
50 Id., at p. 272.
51 Id., at pp. 81-111.
316

No. 122222, claiming that the following orders of the RTC

were issued without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction: (a) Order dated February 24, 2010 initially
denying the consolidation of Civil Case No. 2031-08 and
LRC Case No. 1117-09; (b) Order dated September 20,
2010 reinstating Civil Case No. 2031-08; (c) April 7, 2011
Omnibus Order consolidating Civil Case No. 2031-08 and
LRC Case No. 1117-09 and ordering the petitioner to
procure the appointment of an executor or administrator
for the estate of Bautista; (d) Order dated September 30,
2011 upholding the April 7, 2011 Omnibus Order upon
motion for reconsideration; and (e) the Notice of Hearing
dated September 12, 2011 in Sp. Proc. Case No. 1075-11.
The CAÊs Ruling
In a Decision52 dated March 20, 2014, the CA gave due

course to the petition only with respect to the assailed April
7, 2011 Omnibus Order which ordered the consolidation of
Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09 and
dismissed the petition as to the four (4) other assailed
orders of the RTC due to procedural lapses.53 Nevertheless,
the CA ruled in favor of respondent and accordingly, set
aside the April 7, 2011 Omnibus Order of the RTC and
ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2031-08.54
The CA held that the complaint for specific performance
and damages in Civil Case No. 2031-08 was an action in
personam since its object was to compel Bautista to
perform his obligations under the Deed of Conditional Sale
and hence, rendered him pecuniarily liable. As such, the
obligations in the contract attached to him alone and did
not burden the subject property. Since the action was
founded on a personal
_______________
52 Id., at pp. 51-65.

53 Id., at pp. 57-59.
54 Id., at p. 62.
317
VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 317

obligation, it did not survive BautistaÊs death. Hence,

the CA concluded that the dismissal of the complaint by
reason thereof, and not a resort to Section 16, Rule 3 of the
Rules of Court, was the proper course of action.
Consequently, the CA opined that the issue involving the
propriety of the consolidation of the two cases had become
moot and academic.55
Petitioner moved for reconsideration56 but was denied in
a Resolution57 dated October 8, 2014; hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The primordial issue for the CourtÊs resolution is

whether or not the CA correctly dismissed Civil Case No.
2031-08 in view of BautistaÊs death.
The CourtÊs Ruling
The petition is meritorious.

Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court governs the rule
on substitution in case of death of any of the parties to a
pending suit. It reads in full:
SEC. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel.·When-

ever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim
is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of
his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days
after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the
name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this
duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the

appointment of an executor or administrator and the
court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor
heirs.
_______________
55 Id., at pp. 59-62.

56 Not attached to the Rollo.
57 Rollo, pp. 67-68.
318

The court shall forthwith order said legal

representative or representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from
notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel
for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall
fail to appear within the specified period, the court
may order the opposing party, within a specified time,
to procure the appointment of an executor or
administrator for the estate of the deceased and the
latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of
the deceased. The court charges in procuring such
appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may
be recovered as costs. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows the

substitution of a party-litigant who dies during the
pendency of a case by his heirs, provided that the claim
subject of said case is not extinguished by his death.
As early as in Bonilla v. Barcena,58 the Court has settled
that if the claim in an action affects property and property
rights, then the action survives the death of a party-
litigant, viz.:
The question as to whether an action survives or

not depends on the nature of the action and the
damage sued for. In the causes of action which
survive the wrong complained affects primarily
and principally property and property rights,
the injuries to the person being merely
incidental, while in the causes of action which do not
survive the injury complained of is to the person, the
property and rights of property affected being
incidental. x x x.59 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
_______________
58 163 Phil. 516, 521; 71 SCRA 491, 495 (1976).

59 Id., at p. 521; pp. 495-496. See also Carabeo v. Dingco, 662 Phil.
565, 570; 647 SCRA 200, 206 (2011); Cruz v. Cruz, 644 Phil. 67, 72; 629
SCRA 605, 609 (2010); Sumaljag v. Literato, 578 Phil. 48, 56; 555 SCRA
53, 60 (2008); Suria v. Heirs of Brigido M. Tomolin, 552 Phil. 354, 358;
525 SCRA 278, 282 (2007); and Gonzales v. PAGCOR, 473 Phil. 582, 591;
429 SCRA 533, 540 (2004).
319
VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 319

In the instant case, although the CA correctly pointed

out that Civil Case No. 2031-08 involves a complaint for
specific performance and damages, a closer perusal of
petitionerÊs complaint reveals that it actually prays for,
inter alia, the delivery of ownership of the subject land
through BautistaÊs execution of a deed of sale and the
turnover of TCT No. T-800 in its favor. This shows that the
primary objective and nature of Civil Case No. 2031-08 is
to recover the subject property itself and thus, is deemed to
be a real action.60
In Gochan v. Gochan,61 the Court explained that

complaints like this are in the nature of real actions, or
actions affecting title to or recovery of possession of real
property, to wit:
In this jurisdiction, the dictum adhered to is that

the nature of an action is determined by the
allegations in the body of the pleading or complaint
itself, rather than by its title or heading. The
caption of the complaint below was
denominated as one for „specific performance
and damages.‰ The relief sought, however, is the
conveyance or transfer of real property, or
ultimately, the execution of deeds of conveyance
in their favor of the real properties enumerated
in the provisional memorandum of agreement.
Under these circumstances, the case below was
actually a real action, affecting as it does title to
or possession of real property.
In the case of Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena,
this Court held that a real action is one where the
plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property or, as
indicated in Section 2(a) of Rule 4 (now Section 1,
Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), a real
action is an action affecting title to or recovery of
possession of real property.
_______________
60 See Gochan v. Gochan, 423 Phil. 491, 502; 372 SCRA 256, 264
(2001), citing Ruiz v. J.M Tuason & Co., Inc., 117 Phil. 223, 227-228; 7
SCRA 202, 206 (1963).
61 Id.
320

It has also been held that where a complaint

is entitled as one for specific performance but
nonetheless prays for the issuance of a deed of
sale for a parcel of land, its primary objective
and nature is one to recover the parcel of land
itself and, thus, is deemed a real action. x x x.
xxxx
In the case at bar, therefore, the complaint filed
with the trial court was in the nature of a real action,
although ostensibly denominated as one for specific
performance.62 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Evidently, Civil Case No. 2031-08 is a real action

affecting property and property rights over the subject
land. Therefore, the death of a partylitigant, i.e., Bautista,
did not render the case dismissible on such ground, but
rather, calls for the proper application of Section 16, Rule 3
of the Rules of Court on substitution of party-litigants.
Similarly, in Carabeo v. Spouses Dingco,63 the Court held
that an action for specific performance based on the
„Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Karapatan sa Lupa‰ was in
pursuit of a property right and, as such, survives the death
of a party thereto.
In sum, the CA erred in dismissing Civil Case No.
2031-08 based solely on BautistaÊs death. As such, it should
be reinstated and consolidated with LRC Case No. 1117-
09, considering that the two cases involve the same
property and, as correctly opined by the court a quo, any
adjudication in either case would necessarily affect the
other.64 In this relation, case law states that consolidation
of cases, when proper, results in the simplification of
proceedings, which saves time, the resources of the parties
and the courts, and a possible major abbreviation of trial. It
is a desirable end to be achieved,
_______________
62 Id., at pp. 501-503; pp. 264-265.

63 Supra note 59 at pp. 570-571; p. 206.
64 See Yu, Sr. v. Basilio G. Magno Construction and Development
Enterprises, Inc., 535 Phil. 604, 617-619; 504 SCRA 618, 632 (2006).
321
VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 321

within the context of the present state of affairs where

court dockets are full and individual and state finances are
limited. It contributes to the swift dispensation of justice,
and is in accord with the aim of affording the parties a just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of their cases before
the courts. Likewise, it avoids the possibility of conflicting
decisions being rendered by the courts in two or more cases
which would otherwise require a single judgment.65
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
Decision dated March 20, 2014 and the Resolution dated
October 8, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P.
No. 122222, dismissing Civil Case No. 2031-08 are hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Omnibus
Order dated April 7, 2011 and the Order dated September
30, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite,
Branch 20, in consolidated cases docketed as Civil Case No.
2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09 are REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.
Notes.·Consolidation of actions involving a common

question of law or fact is expressly authorized under
Section 1, Rule 31 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Deutsche Bank AG vs. Court of Appeals, 667 SCRA 82
[2012])
The consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court and its action in consolidating will
not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse of
discretion. (Id.)
··o0o··
_______________
65 Id., at p. 619; p. 633.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pacific Rehouse Corporation vs. Ngo PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pacific Rehouse Corporation vs. Ngo PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pacific Rehouse Corporation vs. Ngo PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 789 17/02/2019, 1)46 PM

G.R. No. 214934. April 12, 2016.*

PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Substitution of Parties;

VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 309

survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the

On February 17, 1994, petitioner Pacific Rehouse

1 Rollo, pp. 30-49.

VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 311

However, despite receipt of payment in the total amount

8 Id., at pp. 116-117.

13 Id., at pp. 156-160 (Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim dated

312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the identities of the heirs of Bautista and their

with the Registry of Deeds of Cavite and annotated on TCT

16 Id., at pp. 185-186.

VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 313

and the subject property was sold at a public auction,

314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In an Order33 dated February 24, 2010, the RTC denied

Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09.37

33 Id., at pp. 189-190.

VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 315

pointment of an administrator pursuant to Section 16,

denied in an Order42 dated September 30, 2011.

316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No. 122222, claiming that the following orders of the RTC

The CAÊs Ruling

In a Decision52 dated March 20, 2014, the CA gave due

52 Id., at pp. 51-65.

VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 317

obligation, it did not survive BautistaÊs death. Hence,

The Issue Before the Court

The primordial issue for the CourtÊs resolution is

The CourtÊs Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

SEC. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel.·When​-

substituted for the deceased, without requiring the

55 Id., at pp. 59-62.

318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The court shall forthwith order said legal

Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows the

The question as to whether an action survives or

58 163 Phil. 516, 521; 71 SCRA 491, 495 (1976).

VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 319

In the instant case, although the CA correctly pointed

In Gochan v. Gochan,61 the Court explained that

In this jurisdiction, the dictum adhered to is that

320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

It has also been held that where a complaint

Evidently, Civil Case No. 2031-08 is a real action

62 Id., at pp. 501-503; pp. 264-265.

VOL. 789, APRIL 12, 2016 321

within the context of the present state of affairs where

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

SEC. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel.·When-