50.

Napere v Barbarona
[G.R. No. 160426 January 31, 2008]

FACTS:
o Barbarona is the owner of a parcel of land in Leyte. A lot owned by Anacleto Napere adjoined the lot
of Barbarona on one side.
o When Anacleto Napere died, his son Juan Napere and his wife (petitioner) planted coconut trees on
some portions.
PROCEDURE:
o Barbarona filed a complaint against Juan Napere for encroaching on a portion of his lot and cultivating
the coconut planted on the former’s lot. Despite demands from Barbarona, Napere refused to vacate.
o Juan Napere died during the pendency of the case. His counsel informed the court about this but no
formal substitutions of the heirs were made.
o Eventually, a judgment in favor of Barbarona was rendered.
o The heirs of Napere appealed to the CA that the judgment rendered was void for lack of jurisdiction
because of failure of the court to formally substitute Napere’s heirs to the case.
o CA affirmed the RTC. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: WON the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction or for the failure to substitute a deceased party in
the proceeding? NO

RULING:
 No. According to the Rules of Court, when a party to a pending case dies, and the action is not
extinguished by death, the Rules require the substitution of the deceased party y his legal
representative or heirs. In such case, the counsel is obliged to inform the court of the death of his
client and give the name and address of the latter’s legal representatives.
o Napere’s counsel complied with these obligations. It is the RTC who failed to order a
substitution. Despite of this, the RTC decision should not be nullified unless there is a showing
that such failure to order a substitute constitutes an undeniable violation of due process.
 The party alleging nullity must instead prove that there was undeniable violation of due process
 The matter of substitution of heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process.
The rule was designed to ensure that the deceased part would continue to be properly represented in
the suit through his heirs. This was accomplished in this case, because even without the order of the
court, the heirs of Napere have appeared and actively participated in the proceedings. Formal
substitution of heirs is, therefore, not necessary.
 Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when they themselves appear in court, participate in the
case and present evidence in the defense of the deceased. In this case, the heirs of Juan were present,
participated and testified for the defense of Juan. Hence, formal substitution was not necessary. They
cannot claim denial of due process when they were given every opportunity to participate in the trial

FALLO:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals, dated October 9, 2003, in CA-G.R. CV No. 56457, is AFFIRMED