ROSALIO & SALVACION BONILLA (minors) & PONCIANO (their father) vs.

LEON BARCENA et c) An action to quiet title survives even after death:

al. & CFI JUDGE LEOPOLDO GIRONELLA
Opening of Succession | June 18, 1876 | Martin, J.
Nature of the Case: Review of the Order of CFI
SUMMARY: The plaintiff, who instituted an action to quiet title, died pending litigation.
Counsel for the plaintiff requested for substitution by her minor children but the lower court
dismissed the complaint filed by the now deceased plaintiff and denied the request for
substitution on the ground that a dead person and minors alike have no legal capacity to sue.
The Court reversed, holding that when Fortunata died, her claim or right to the parcels of
land in litigation was not extinguished by her death but was transmitted to her heirs upon
her death who have thus acquired interest in the properties in litigation and became parties-
in-interest in the case.
DOCTRINE: The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of
the decedent [Art. 777 NCC]. From the moment of the death of the decedent, the heirs
become the absolute owners of his property, subject to the rights and obligations of the
decedent, and they cannot be deprived of their rights thereto except by the methods
provided for by law. The moment of death is the determining factor when the heirs acquire
a definite right to the inheritance whether such right be pure or contingent. The right of the
heirs to the property of the deceased vests in them even before judicial declaration of their
being heirs in the testate or intestate proceedings.
 Under Rule 3, Section 17, after a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished,
the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to
appear and be substituted for the deceased.
 Whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the
damage sued for.
o 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.
o 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.
 Here, Fortunata’s claim, which is an action to quiet title over the parcels of land
in litigation, affects primarily and principally property and property rights and
therefore is one that survives even after her death.
 It is in fact the duty of the lower court not only to order the legal representative of the
deceased plaintiff to appear and to be substituted for her, but also to order the
opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal representative of the deceased
if the legal representative fails to appear.
d) Minors can sue in court through a legal representative.
 Under the same Section 17, Rule 3, the court is directed to appoint a guardian ad litem
for the minor heirs.

FACTS:
 On March 31, 1975, Fortunata, mother of minors Rosalio and Salvacion and wife of
Ponciano, filed an action to quiet title over parcels of land in Abra.
 Pending the case or on July 9, 1975, Fortunata died so defendants moved to dismiss on the
ground that Fortunata is already dead and therefore has no legal capacity to sue. Counsel
for Fortunata confirmed and asked for substitution by her minor children and husband but
CFI Judge immediately dismissed on the ground that a dead person has no legal capacity
to sue.
 Counsel for plaintiff moved to set aside the dismissal, invoking Sections 16-17 of Rule 3 of
ROC as well as a written manifestation praying that the minors be allowed to substitute
their deceased mother. Both were denied hence this petition.
RULING: Order is set aside and the lower court is directed to appoint a qualified person as
guardian ad litem for the deceased plaintiff’s minor children.
NOTES: Legal representative takes place of deceased party. – When the trial court is
apprised of the death of a party, it should order, not the amendment of the complaint, but then
appearance of the legal representative of the deceased as provided in Section 17, Rule 3. An
order to amend the complaint, before the proper substitution of the deceased parties has been
effected, is void. In such a case the order of the court, dismissing the complaint, for plaintiff’s
noncompliance with the order to amend it, is likewise void [Casenas vs. Rosales (1967].

ISSUE: W/N the dismissal of the action to quiet title on the ground of the deceased’s lack
of personality to sue and the denial of the request for substitution were proper – NO.
a) Court already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff:
 When the complaint was filed on March 31, 1975, Fortunata was still alive, having
died only on July 9, 1975. Thus, the court had already acquired jurisdiction over her
person.
 If after instituting a case the plaintiff dies, ROC prescribes the procedure whereby a
party who died during the pendency of the proceeding can be substituted.
 Per Rule 3, Section 16 of ROC, whenever a party to a pending case dies, it shall be
the duty of his attorney to inform the court promptly of such death and to give the
name and residence of his executor, administrator, guardian or other legal
representatives. This duty was complied with by the counsel for the deceased plaintiff
when the written manifestation was filed.
b) Rights to succession, transmitted upon decedent’s death:
 See doctrine.
 Thus, when Fortunata died, her claim or right to the parcels of land in litigation
was not extinguished by her death but was transmitted to her heirs upon her
death who have thus acquired interest in the properties in litigation and
became parties-in-interest in the case.