View full case

EDWINO A. TORRES v. BALLIGI V. RODELLAS

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over a 111-square meter parcel of land located in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. Respondent Balligi Rodellas and her family occupied the land since 1967 and built a residential house on it. In 1986, Balligi filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) for the land. However, in 1989, Balligi and her family left Mindoro for Manila and Balligi eventually left the country to work in Saudi Arabia. During this time, the house on the land was left in the care of Balligi's relatives. Petitioner Edwino Torres and his spouse moved into the house claiming that Balligi had already sold him the property. Edwino filed an MSA for the land in his name. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued a report recommending that Edwino's MSA be given due course and rejecting Balligi's MSA. Balligi's son, Eugenio, filed a protest against Edwino's MSA alleging that the document supporting Edwino's claim was forged. Eugenio and his aunt filed an amended protest, attaching a special power of attorney executed by Balligi. The DENR dismissed the protests against Edwino's MSA and stating that Eugenio and Inanama did not have the authority to represent Balligi and the genuineness of the document presented by Edwino should be determined by the courts. Balligi filed a request for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

The petitioner, Balligi V. Rodellas, filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. Balligi then filed an Opposition/Protest against Edwino's MSA, which led to another Order directing an investigation and holding the processing of Edwino's MSA in abeyance. The DENR-RO No. IV dismissed Balligi's Opposition/Protest. Balligi moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the DENR Secretary. Balligi then filed an appeal with the Office of the President, which reversed and set aside the orders of the DENR Secretary and DENR-RO No. IV. The Office of the President ordered the DENR to reject Edwino's MSA and reinstate Balligi's MSA, and ordered all persons occupying the subject property to vacate. The lawyer representing Edwino received a copy of the Decision and filed a Motion for Reconsideration. However, the Office of the President dismissed the Motion for Reconsideration on the grounds that it was filed out of time and lacked personality.

Edwino's representatives and legal heirs appointed Atty. Alexander Restor as their legal counsel and filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition, stating that the Decision of the Office of the President had already attained finality. Edwino's son and daughter filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the Motion was filed within the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals conceded that the Motion was not filed out of time but maintained that Atty. Restor lacked legal personality to file the Motion. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Decision had become final and executory and could not be reviewed anymore. Edwino's son and daughter filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their Petition on the ground of finality and in refusing to rule on the propriety of the dismissal of the Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the ruling of the Office of the President that Atty. Restor had no legal personality to file the motion for reconsideration;

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to rule on the propriety of the dismissal of the motion for reconsideration; and

  3. Whether the subsequent opposition/protest violates the principle of res judicata.

  4. Whether or not the heirs of a deceased party can be substituted in an action that survives the death of a party.

  5. Whether or not failure of the counsel to comply with the duty to inform the court of the client's death within the specified period results in the counsel being without personality to appear as counsel in the proceedings.

  6. Whether the 5 August 2003 Decision of the Office of the President had already attained finality.

  7. Whether Atty. Restor lacked the personality to file the Motion for Reconsideration due to his failure to formally withdraw as Edwino's counsel and formally substitute for Atty. Castillo.

  8. Whether the dismissal of the Motion for Reconsideration was erroneous.

  9. Whether the case should be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

RULING:

  1. The Office of the President misapplied the rule on substitution upon the death of a party litigant. The Rules of Court, particularly Section 16, Rule 3, applies in a suppletory character. Thus, the heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator.

  2. Yes, the heirs of a deceased party can be substituted in an action that survives the death of a party. The determination of whether an action survives the death of a party depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. If the wrong complained of affects primarily and principally property and property rights, while the injuries to the person are merely incidental, then the action survives. In this case, the parties accuse each other of unlawfully depriving them of their respective rights to acquire the subject property, which primarily affects property and property rights. Therefore, the heirs must be allowed to continue the litigation to protect said property or property rights and to substitute themselves for the deceased party.

  3. No, failure of the counsel to comply with the duty to inform the court of the client's death within the specified period does not result in the counsel being without personality to appear as counsel in the proceedings. The counsel may be subjected to disciplinary action, but it does not affect the counsel's authority to appear as counsel for the benefit of the client or the client's heirs.

  4. The 5 August 2003 Decision of the Office of the President had not yet attained finality because the notice of the decision was not properly served to the party, and the period within which to file a motion for reconsideration had not begun to toll. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Restor should not have been dismissed.

  5. The lack of personality of Atty. Restor to file the Motion for Reconsideration was not due to his failure to formally withdraw as Edwino's counsel and substitute for Atty. Castillo. A second counsel appearing for a party does not automatically mean that the authority of the first counsel has been withdrawn. Atty. Restor is presumed to have acted within his authority as a collaborating counsel when he filed the Motion for Reconsideration.

  6. The dismissal of the Motion for Reconsideration was erroneous because Atty. Restor had the authority to file the motion as a collaborating counsel, and the Office of the President was partly responsible for the non-substitution of the heirs for the deceased Edwino. Therefore, the heirs should be given the opportunity to contest the adverse judgment.

  7. The case should be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings to determine the authenticity and validity of the Affidavit of Relinquishment/Sale of Right allegedly executed by Balligi in favor of Edwino. The Court of Appeals has the authority to review findings of fact and hold hearings for further reception of evidence, unlike the Supreme Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The failure to comply with the procedural rule on substitution upon the death of a party should not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment rendered therein if the action survives the death of the party. (Alfonso and Fatima's argument)

  • A party represented by an attorney must be heard only through such attorney, who has the exclusive management and control of the action and all steps and proceedings taken therein to enforce the rights and remedies of his client. (Balligi's argument)

  • In actions that survive the death of a party, the heirs of a deceased party may be substituted and allowed to continue the litigation to protect property or property rights.

  • Failure of the counsel to comply with the duty to inform the court of the client's death within the specified period may result in disciplinary action against the counsel but does not affect the counsel's authority to appear as counsel in the proceedings.

  • The lack of proper service of notice prevents a decision from attaining finality.

  • A second counsel appearing for a party does not automatically withdraw the authority of the first counsel.

  • Justice and equity demand that heirs be given the opportunity to contest adverse judgments that affect their property rights.

  • The Supreme Court is not a trier of fact and generally defers to the Court of Appeals' findings of fact.