Art 3 (63) Viaje.docx

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.