8/10/2019 14 heirs of regoso v. CA (1).docx

1/1

14.) HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO V. CA

Facts:Private respondent Belen Cruz-Regoso filed an action for judicial partition of property

with accounting and damages against her husband, Maximo Regoso, before RTC of Malolos,

Bulacan. The RTC ruled in favor of herein private respondent.

However, Maximo Regoso died after the case had been submitted for decision and he

was not substituted as defendant by his heirs. The trial court was not even informed on the

demise of the defendant until it promulgated its decision three (3) years from his death. Thecounsel of herein petitioners filed a notice of appeal before the trial court and the same was

approved. Private respondent objected and moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the

deceasedpetitioner ceased to have legal personality and his counsels authority to represent him

had lost or terminated upon his demise.

The CA dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners. The court held that well-established

rule that a lawyer-client relationship was terminated upon the death of the client. Unlessotherwise stipulated that the contract for the lawyer's services would still exist up to judgment, or

when his fees were on a contingent basis, and also when his appearance was coupled with an

interest. None of these instances was ever agreed upon by the deceased and his counsel.

Issue:

WON Appellate Court erred in dismissing the petitioners appeal and in not declaring thatthe judgment which the RTC rendered after the death of Maximo Regoso as null and void.

Ruling:

NO.The Supreme Court denied the petition. Under Section 6 and 17 of Rule 3 of the Rules of

Court that it was the duty of the attorney for the deceased client to inform the court of such

death. Furthermore, the said provision of law also stated that after a party dies and the claim wasnot thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the

deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or

within such time as may be granted. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substitutedfor the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court

may appoint guardian ad litemfor the minor heirs.

Nonetheless, no such notice of death in the instant case, or a motion for substitution of

the deceased Maximo, was ever made. Hence, the trial court could not be expected to know ortake judicial notice of the death of Maximo, without the proper manifestation from his counsel.

Then notice of appeal, which petitioners counsel filed on behalf of the decedent was an

unauthorized pleading, hence, invalid. Moreover, the validity of the judgment of the RTC was

not affected by the demise of Maximo for the action survived. The decision is binding andenforceable against the successors-in-interest of the deceased litigant.