May a person who had bought the property in litigation from the plaintiff move that he or she be substituted for the plaintiff if the latter dies during the pendency of the case?
A case decided by the Supreme Court is illustrative.* The facts are briefly restated as follows: Josefa filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint for the nullification of the deed of sale of real property purportedly executed between her as vendor and the defendants spouses as vendees. Josefa alleged that the deed of sale was spurious.
The defendants filed an amended answer with counterclaim denying that the deed of sale was falsified. They impleaded the petitioner S with Josefa as defendants in the counterclaim on the allegation that the petitioner, at the instance of Josefa, occupied the subject lot without their (the defendants’) authority.
Josefa died during the pendency of the case. Atty. P (the counsel of Josefa and petitioner) filed with the RTC a notice of death and motion for substitution of party, praying that Josefa – in her capacity as plaintiff – be substituted by the petitioner pursuant to Section 19, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. The said section reads as follows:
“SEC. 19. Transfer of interest. – In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party.”
The motion alleged that during the pendency of the case and prior to Josefa’s death, she had executed a quitclaim deed over the subject lot in favor of M who in turn sold the property to the petitioner. May the motion for submission be granted?
The Court held that the motion for substitution anchored on Section 19 of Rule 3 may not be granted. The Court stated that the governing rule is Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court which provides that in case of the death of a party pendente lite, the party should be substituted by his legal representatives as provided therein. The reason for the rule is to protect all concerned who may be affected by the intervening death, particularly the decedent’s estate and heirs. The petitioner evidently is not the legal representative contemplated in Section 16 of Rule 3, which refers to the executor, administrator, or legal heirs of the decedent.
The Court held that Section 19 of Rule 3 on substitution by transfer of interest applies only if the original party-transferor is still alive. Josefa was already dead at the time the motion for substitution was filed. In the absence of an executor or administrator, the court ordered that Josefa be substituted by her legal heirs.
The remedy of the petitioner was to file a motion for leave to intervene under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. As a buyer of the property, the petitioner has a legal interest in the property in litigation.
-oOo-
* Sumaljag v. Literato, 555 SCRA 53 (2008), Brion, J.
