FACTS:
On July 10, 1990, Domingo Carabeo (petitioner) entered into a contract with Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco (respondents) whereby petitioner agreed to sell his rights over a parcel of unregistered land to respondents for P38,000. Respondents tendered their initial payment of P10,000 upon signing of the contract, with the remaining balance to be paid on September 1990. Petitioner requested respondents to keep the remaining balance as he was settling an ongoing "squabble" over the land. Despite this problem, respondents insisted on paying the balance of P18,900. However, petitioner refused to accept it, stating that he would register the land first. In 1994, respondents learned that the problem had been settled and that petitioner had registered the land. They offered to pay the balance, but petitioner declined. This led to the filing of a complaint for specific performance before the Regional Trial Court. After the case was submitted for decision, petitioner passed away. The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, ordering petitioner to sell his rights over the land and to pay the costs of the suit. Petitioner's counsel filed a Notice of Appeal, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioner's son, Antonio Carabeo, filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. The Court denied the petition, stating that the sale was not null and void despite the lack of technical boundaries specified in the contract. The Court also held that petitioner's death did not dismiss the action since it involved property rights. Furthermore, the trial court's judgment was valid and binding even if petitioner had not been substituted as a party after his death. The Court also noted that petitioner's counsel had no authority to file the Notice of Appeal since it was filed after petitioner's death and without proper substitution. Therefore, the trial court's decision became final and executory.
ISSUES:
-
Whether or not the contract of sale is valid for lack of object certain.
-
Whether or not the death of the petitioner causes the dismissal of the action filed by respondents.
-
Whether or not the counsel of record had the authority to file a Notice of Appeal on behalf of the deceased client.
RULING:
-
The contract of sale is valid despite the lack of specification of technical boundaries of the property. The requirement that a sale must have a determinate thing as its object is satisfied as long as the object of the sale can be made determinate at the time of the contract without the need for further agreement between the parties.
-
The death of the petitioner does not cause the dismissal of the action filed by the respondents. The action involves a property right arising from the contract, and even assuming that the contract is void, there is a corollary obligation for the petitioner to return the money paid by the respondents. Therefore, the action survives.
-
The counsel of record did not have the authority to file a Notice of Appeal on behalf of the deceased client. The death of a client immediately divests the counsel of authority. Since the trial court was not informed of the petitioner's death and no substitution was made, the trial court's decision became final and executory.
PRINCIPLES:
-
A contract of sale is valid even if it does not specify the technical boundaries of the property, as long as the object of the sale can be made determinate at the time of the contract without the need for further agreement between the parties.
-
The death of a party does not cause the dismissal of an action if it involves a property right arising from a contract. The action survives and the obligation of the deceased party, such as the return of money, remains.
-
The death of a client immediately divests the counsel of authority. The counsel of record cannot act on behalf of the deceased client without proper substitution.