Dumlao vs. Quality Plastic Products, Inc.

A judgment rendered against a person who was already dead when the action was filed is void for lack of jurisdiction over his person, because death extinguishes civil personality and juridical capacity, making valid service of summons impossible, and voluntary appearance by a co-defendant's counsel cannot substitute for such service.

Pedro Oria was one of four sureties in a bond (Exhibit A) securing the obligations of principal debtor Vicente Soliven to Quality Plastic Products, Inc.; Oria pledged his 9.6-hectare land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 28732 as security for his undertaking. Oria died on April 23, 1959, leaving a duly probated will under which Dionisio, Fausta, Amado, and Benjamin Dumlao were testamentary heirs, with Dionisio Dumlao serving as administrator of the testate estate. At the time of Oria's death, Special Proceeding No. T-212 for his testate estate was already pending in the same Court of First Instance of Pangasinan sitting in Tayug.

On February 28, 1962, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in Civil Case No. T-662 rendered judgment ordering Vicente Soliven, Pedro Oria, Santiago Laurencio, Marcelino Sumalbag, and Juana Darang to pay solidarily Quality Plastic Products, Inc. the sum of ₱3,667.03 plus the legal rate of interest from November 1958. The four sureties had bound themselves under a bond (Exhibit A) to answer solidarily for the obligations of the principal, Vicente Soliven, and certain real properties of the sureties were given as security for their undertaking. The lower court directed that if the defendants failed to pay before the decision became final, Quality Plastic Products, Inc. was authorized to foreclose the bond in accordance with law for satisfaction of the judgment.

Upon defendants' failure to pay and after the decision became final, the lower court, on motion of Quality Plastic Products, Inc., ordered the foreclosure of the surety bond and the sale at public auction of Oria's land — a 9.6-hectare property covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 28732. The sheriff levied upon and sold the land at public auction on September 24, 1962, and the sale was confirmed by the lower court in its order of November 20, 1962.

It turned out that Oria had died on April 23, 1959 — long before June 13, 1960, when the action was filed. Quality Plastic Products, Inc. was unaware of Oria's death, nor were its representatives aware that Special Proceeding No. T-212, Testate Estate of the deceased Pedro Oria, was pending in the same Tayug court. The summons and copies of the complaint for the five defendants in Civil Case No. T-662 had been personally served on June 24, 1960 by a deputy sheriff on Soliven, the principal in the bond, who acknowledged such service by signing on the back of the original summons in his own behalf and again signing for his co-defendants.

On March 1, 1963, Dionisio, Fausta, Amado, and Benjamin, all surnamed Dumlao and all testamentary heirs under Oria's duly probated will, sued Quality Plastic Products, Inc. in the Tayug court for annulment of the judgment against Oria and the execution against his land. Dionisio Dumlao also sued in his capacity as administrator of Oria's testate estate. The ground for annulment was lack of jurisdiction over the person of the deceased Oria. It was only when Quality Plastic Products, Inc. received the summons in Civil Case No. T-873 that it learned Oria was already dead at the time the prior case was filed.

Quality Plastic Products, Inc. alleged in its answer that Oria's heirs were aware of the suit against Soliven and his sureties and that the heirs were estopped from questioning the court's jurisdiction over Oria. After hearing, the lower court held that it acquired jurisdiction over Soliven and the other defendants in Civil Case No. T-662 by reason of their voluntary appearance, reasoning that Soliven acted in bad faith by not apprising the court that Oria was dead. It specifically ruled that it had acquired jurisdiction over the person of Oria and that the judgment was valid as to him. The Dumlaos appealed.

• Lack of Jurisdiction over Oria: Petitioners argued that the lower court never acquired jurisdiction over Pedro Oria because he was already dead when the action was filed on June 13, 1960, and a deceased person cannot be validly served with summons.
• Nullity of Judgment and Execution Sale: Petitioners maintained that the judgment against Oria in Civil Case No. T-662 was void for lack of jurisdiction over his person, and that the execution sale of his land covered by OCT No. 28732 was likewise void.

• Estoppel: Respondent argued that Oria's heirs were aware of the suit against Soliven and his sureties and were estopped from questioning the court's jurisdiction over Oria.
• Voluntary Appearance: Respondent contended that jurisdiction was acquired over Oria through voluntary appearance, since Soliven's counsel also appeared as counsel for Oria, bringing Oria within the court's jurisdiction under Section 23, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court.

• Jurisdiction over a Deceased Defendant: Whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over Pedro Oria, who had died before the action was filed and was never personally served with summons.
• Voluntary Appearance by Co-Defendant's Counsel: Whether jurisdiction over a deceased co-defendant could be acquired through the voluntary appearance of a living co-defendant's counsel.

• Jurisdiction over a Deceased Defendant: No. The judgment against Oria is void for lack of jurisdiction, he having died before the action was filed and being incapable of valid service of summons.
• Voluntary Appearance by Co-Defendant's Counsel: No. Soliven's counsel could not have validly appeared for a dead co-defendant, and estoppel has no application to the case.

• Jurisdiction over a Deceased Defendant: Since no jurisdiction was acquired over Oria, the judgment against him is a patent nullity, following Ang Lam vs. Rosillosa and Santiago, Asuncion vs. Nieto, and Gorostiaga vs. Sarte. Oria was not, and could not have been, validly served with summons because he had no more civil personality. His juridical capacity — the fitness to be the subject of legal relations — was lost through death, pursuant to Articles 37 and 42 of the Civil Code. A person who has ceased to exist cannot be made a party to an action or brought within the ambit of judicial process.

• Voluntary Appearance by Co-Defendant's Counsel: The lower court erred in ruling that since Soliven's counsel also appeared as counsel for Oria, there was a voluntary appearance enabling the court to acquire jurisdiction over Oria under Section 23, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. Soliven's counsel could not have validly appeared for a dead co-defendant, as a deceased person lacks the legal capacity to appear or be represented in court. Estoppel has no application to this case. The parties stipulated that Quality Plastic Products, Inc. was unaware of Oria's death, and appellants effectively conceded that the appellee acted in good faith in joining Oria as a co-defendant. Consequently, while the judgment and execution sale were nullified, no attorney's fees were awarded against the corporation.

• Extinguishment of Civil Personality and Juridical Capacity upon Death — Civil personality and juridical capacity — the fitness to be the subject of legal relations — are lost through death (Arts. 37 and 42, Civil Code). A deceased person cannot be validly served with summons and cannot be brought under a court's jurisdiction. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Oria, having died before the action was filed, was beyond the reach of judicial process.

• Nullity of Judgment for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Person — A judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is a patent nullity and may be attacked at any time. The Court applied this to declare void the lower court's judgment against Oria in Civil Case No. T-662 and the execution sale of his land, since no valid service of summons or appearance was effected on the deceased.

• Inapplicability of Voluntary Appearance for a Deceased Co-Defendant — Voluntary appearance under Section 23, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot substitute for service of summons on a person already dead. Counsel for a living co-defendant cannot validly appear for a deceased co-defendant, as the latter has no civil personality to support an appearance. Estoppel cannot supply the jurisdictional defect.

• "Since no jurisdiction was acquired over Oria, the judgment against him is a patent nullity." — This states the ratio decidendi: the fundamental rule that a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the defendant's person is void.

• "He had no more civil personality. His juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, was lost through death." — This defines the doctrinal basis for the ruling, anchoring the loss of jurisdictional capacity on the Civil Code provisions on death and juridical capacity.

• "Soliven's counsel could not have validly appeared for a dead co-defendant. Estoppel has no application to this case." — This establishes that voluntary appearance cannot cure the jurisdictional defect as to a deceased party, and that estoppel cannot override the jurisdictional requirement.

• Ang Lam vs. Rosillosa and Santiago, 86 Phil. 447 — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that a judgment against a person over whom no jurisdiction was acquired is a patent nullity.

• Asuncion vs. Nieto, 4 Phil. 97 — Cited in support of the nullity of a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

• Gorostiaga vs. Sarte, 68 Phil. 4 — Cited in support of the rule that lack of jurisdiction over the defendant's person renders the judgment void.

• Articles 37 and 42, Civil Code — Define juridical capacity as the fitness to be the subject of legal relations and provide that civil personality is extinguished upon death. Applied to establish that Oria lost juridical capacity upon his death on April 23, 1959, and could not thereafter be subject to judicial process.

• Section 23, Rule 14, Revised Rules of Court — Governs voluntary appearance as a mode of acquiring jurisdiction over the defendant. The Court held that this provision could not apply to a deceased co-defendant, as counsel for a living defendant cannot validly appear for one who is already dead.

Fernando, Barredo, Antonio, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concurred.