Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Article III, Section 1

Procedural Due Process: Aspect of Proceedings

(63) Brioso v. Mariano


G.R. No. 137265, January 31, 2003
Carpio, J.

POINT OF THE CASE:


Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, shared
in the case and presented evidence in defense of deceased defendant. This is precisely because, despite the
courts non-compliance with the rule on substitution, the heirs right to due process was obviously not
impaired. In other words, the purpose of the rule on substitution of a deceased party was already achieved.

FACTS:
Spouses Mariano repurchased a property they previously sold to Glicerio Brioso. However, the latter
refused to deliver the title. Thus, the spouses filed an action against the Briosos to recover the said property.
In the duration of the case, Glicerio died. The plaintiffs filed a motion for substitution of defendant
which the court approved. Thus, the heirs of Glicerio replaced him as defendants. The RTC later on ruled in
favor of the Marianos and ordered the turn over of the property. Dissatisfied, the Briosos filed an appeal
contending the validity of the substitution. The Court of Appeals denied their petition.

ISSUE:
WON the substitution was invalid, violating the right of the defendants to due process?

RULING:
The Supreme Court granted the petition partly. It ruled that the RTC failed to comply with the rule
on substitution of a deceased party. The trial court, after receiving a notice of Glicerio’s death, failed to
order the appearance of his legal representative or heirs. Instead, the trial court issued an Order merely
admitting respondents’ motion for substitution. There was no court order for Glicerio’s legal representative
to appear, nor did any such legal representative ever appear in court to be substituted for Glicerio. Neither
did the respondents ever procure the appointment of such legal representative, nor did Glicerio’s heirs ever
ask to be substituted for Glicerio. Clearly, the trial court failed to observe the proper procedure in
substituting Glicerio. As a result, no valid substitution transpired in the present case.
However, despite the trial courts failure to adhere to the rule on substitution of a deceased party,
its judgment remains valid and binding on the following heirs, namely, Salvador, Concepcion and Ernesto.
Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, shared in the
case and presented evidence in defense of deceased defendant. This is precisely because, despite the courts
non-compliance with the rule on substitution, the heirs right to due process was obviously not impaired. In
other words, the purpose of the rule on substitution of a deceased party was already achieved. The facts
indicate plainly that there was active participation of these heirs in the defense of Glicerio after his death.