G.R. No. 177836
September 4, 2009
EDWINO A. TORRES (e!e"#e$, repre#e%te "% #&b#t't&te b A)*ONSO +. TORRES III "% *ATIA +. TORRES, #o% "% "&-ter, re#pe!t'/e, o e!e"#e pet't'o%er, pet't'o%er, Petitioners, Petitioners, vs. A))IGI . RODE))AS, Respondent. RODE))AS, Respondent. DECISION 5IONAARIO, J.: This Petition for Review on Certiorari,1 under Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, see!s the review of the "# Nove$%er "&&'" and " (a) "&&* + Resolutions of the Court of ppeals in C-.R. SP No. /1+&, entitled 0Edwino . Torres Torres de2eased3 represented and su%stituted %) lfonso P. Torres III, ati$a P. Torres, son and dau5hter of de2eased petitioner,00 whi2h, respe2tivel), dis$issed the petition assailin5 the de2ision of the Offi2e of the President, and denied the petitioner, su%se6uent $otion for re2onsideration thereof. The root of the present 2ontrovers) is a 111-s6uare 111-s6uare $eter par2el of aliena%le and disposa%le residential land, des2ri%ed as 7ot No. 4, S5s-&4-&&&+1'-D, lo2ated at Po%la2ion, San 8ose, O22idental (indoro su%9e2t propert)3. Respondent :alli5i ;. Rodellas :alli5i3 and her fa$il) %e5an o22up)in5 the su%9e2t propert) so$eti$e in 1#'*. The) %uilt thereon a residential house the Rodellas< house3, initiall) $ade of li5ht $aterials, %ut eventuall) renovated and repla2ed usin5 stron5er $aterials. In O2to%er 1#/', :alli5i filed a (is2ellaneous Sales ppli2ation (S3 for the su%9e2t propert) with the Depart$ent of Environ$ent and Natural Resour2es DENR3. Said appli2ation was do2!eted as (S No. I;-1/3 +"4. In 1#/#, :alli5i and her fa$il) left O22idental (indoro for (anila in order to find wor!. On 1 O2to%er 1#/#, :alli5i left the 2ountr) to 9oin her hus%and in Saudi ra%ia as an Overseas ilipino =or!er O=3. In the $eanti$e, the house %uilt %) :alli5i and her fa$il) on the su%9e2t propert) was left in the 2are and possession of her relatives, na$el), her her half-%rother, ster ;alle9os> ;alle9os> her sister, :ituin ;alle9os> ;alle9os> her 2ousin-in-law, Sonia 8aravata> her sister and and %rother-in-law, spouses Inana$a ;alle9os Inana$a3 and Os2ar allardo> (ila5ros Olarte> and Ildefonso Rui? and fa$il). So$eti$e thereafter, still in 1#/#, petitioner Edwino . Torres Torres Edwino3 and his spouse $oved into i nto the house on o n the su%9e2t propert), o22up)in5 the portion va2ated %) ster ;alle9os. Edwino 2lai$ed that :alli5i alread) sold hi$ the su%9e2t propert) and the house %uilt thereon for P'&,&&&.&&, as eviden2ed %) an ffidavit ffidavit of Relin6uish$ent@Sale of Ri5ht supposedl) si5ned %) the parties thereto a nd notari?ed on # O2to%er 1#/#. ro$ that ti$e on, Edwino 2olle2ted $onthl) rental of P+&&.&& fro$ the other o22upants of the house. On the %asis of the ffidavit of Relin6uish$ent@Sale of Ri5ht, Edwino filed with the DENR an (S in his own na$e for the su%9e2t propert), do2!eted as (S No. I;-1/3 +*/&. fter 2ondu2tin5 an investi5ation and o2ular inspe2tion, =ilfredo (. Pa5uia, 7and Investi5ator, Investi5ator, DENR, issued a Report on 1& 8une 1##1, re2o$$endin5 that Edwino and "3 5ivin5 due 2ourse to Edwino
purported Affidavit of Relinquishment/Sale of Right on # O2to%er 1#/#, 2onsiderin5 that :alli5i and her hus%and were in Saudi ra%ia at that ti$e. Eu5enio and holdin5 the pr o2essin5 of Edwino
Gndaunted, :alli5i filed an appeal with the Offi2e of the President, do2!eted as O.P. Case No. #/-/+*. In a De2ision1& pro$ul5ated on u5ust "&&+, the Offi2e of the President reversed and set aside the assailed orders of the DENR Se2retar) and the DENR-RO No. I;. The Offi2e of the President ad9ud5ed that the prin2iple of res 9 udi2ata was not appli2a%le to the fa2ts of O.P. Case No. #/-/+*, 5iven that 2areful review of the order of 8une 4, 1##+, whi2h the DENR 2lai$s 2onstitutes a %ar to su%se6uent liti5ation, would reveal that the sa$e does not 2o$pl) with the third re6uisite enu$erated a%ove, that the 9ud5$ent $ust %e on the $erits. It will %e re2alled that the Re5ional EAe2utive Dire2tor RED3 refused to rule on the $ain issue raised in the protest, whi2h is the alle5ed for5ed and spurious ffidavit of Relin6uish$ent@Sale of Ri5ht, 2lai$in5 that his Offi2e is not in the position to deter$ine and resolve the 5enuineness and due eAe2ution of the aforesaid do2u$ent> and 2lai$in5 further that 0the said protest should not have %een e ntertained in the first pla2e 2onsiderin5 that upon its filin5, Eu5enio ;. Rodellas 8r. has no personalit) to represent :alli5i ;. Rodellas.0 The Offi2e of the President opined that 0the DENR should have applied res i psa lo6uitur0 instead, sin2e It should have %een ver) 2lear that the alle5ed ffidavit of Relin6uish$ent@Sale of Ri5ht is nothin5 %ut a for5er). Respondent :alli5iF was in the Bin5do$ of Saudi ra%ia at the ti$e she was supposed to have eAe2uted the do2u$ent, as dul) eviden2ed %) the entries in her passport. She left the Philippines on O2to%er 1, 1#/#, while the ffidavit is dated O2to%er #, 1#/# A A A. In fa2t, at the in2eption of the 2ase, she was still there in Saudi ra%ia, whi2h was wh) the RED did not want to re2o5ni?e the le5al personalit) of her son to represent her. If the DENR !new that appellant was out of the 2ountr) all alon5, how 2an it even entertain the thou5ht that she was the one who si5ned the do2u$ent in O22idental (indoroH It is i$portant to note that EdwinoF never 6uestioned the vera2it) of the entries in :alli5iF
1av vphi1
22ordin5 to the Offi2e of the President, Ewino
In a Resolution pro$ul5ated on "# Nove$%er "&&', the appellate 2ourt dis$issed the Petition in C-.R. SP No. /1+&, thus IN ;IE= O TE OREOIN, the petition is here%) DIS(ISSED. 1 The Court of ppeals affir$ed the findin5 of the Offi2e of the President that the u5ust "&&+ De2ision of the latter had lon5 sin2e attained finalit) in view of the late filin5 of Edwino hen2e, tt). Restor was a%le to file su2h a $otion onl) on 1 Septe$%er "&&+, (onda), the neAt wor!in5 da). In its Resolution dated " (a) "&&*, the Court of ppeals re2onsidered its initial position on the point of the late filin5 of the (otion for Re2onsideration of the u5ust "&&+ De2ision of the Offi2e of the President, 2on2edin5 that It is true, as herein petitioners lfonso and ati$aF ar5ue, that the Offi2e of the President failed to ta!e into 2onsideration that the 1th da) fell on a Saturda) and therefore, the (otion for Re2onsideration, whi2h was filed on the 1*th da), 2annot %e said to have %een filed out of ti$e. 1* :ut the appellate 2ourt re$ained steadfast in its resolve that tt). Restor la2!ed the le5al personalit) to file the (otion for Re2onsideration of the u5ust "&&+ De2ision of the Offi2e of the President despite the 7etter of ppoint$ent, dated 1' Nove$%er "&&+, eAe2uted %) Edwino II. TE COGRT O PPE7S ERRED IN REGSIN TO RG7E ON TE PROPRIETJ O TE DIS(ISS7 O PETITIONER and III
TE DECISION O TE DENR REION7 EKECGTI;E DIRECTOR DTED 8GNE 4, 1##+ IN DENR CSE NO. I;4+/ IN ;OR O PETITIONERS S 7ON :ECO(E IN7 ND EKECGTORJ. S SGC, RESPONDENT dut) of 2ounsel. =henever a part) to a pendin5 a2tion dies, and the 2lai$ is not there%) eAtin5uished, it shall %e the d ut) of his 2ounsel to infor$ the 2ourt within thirt) +&3 da)s after su2h death of the fa2t thereof, and to 5ive the na$e and address of his le5al representative or representatives. ailure of 2ounsel to 2o$pl) with his dut) shall %e a 5round for dis2iplinar) a2tion. The heirs of the de2eased $a) %e allowed to %e su%stituted for the de2eased, without re6uirin5 the appoint$ent of an eAe2utor or ad$inistrator and the 2ourt $a) appoint a 5uardian ad litem for the $inor heirs. The 2ourt shall forthwith order said le5al representative or representatives to appear and %e su%stituted within a period of thirt) +&3 da)s fro$ noti2e.
If no le5al representative is na$ed %) the 2ounsel for the de2eased part), or if the one so na$ed shall fail to appear within the spe2ified period, the 2ourt $a) order the opposin5 part), within a spe2ified ti$e, to pro2ure the appoint$ent of an eAe2utor or ad$inistrator for the estate of the de2eased and the latter shall i$$ediatel) appear for and on %ehalf of the de2eased. The 2ourt 2har5es in pro2urin5 su2h appoint$ent, if defra)ed %) the opposin5 part), $a) %e re2overed as 2osts. E$phases ours.3 Clear fro$ the afore6uoted provision that a de2eased part) $a) %e su%stituted %) his heirs, %ut it $ust %e e$phasi?ed that su%stitution $a) onl) %e allowed in a2tions that survive the death of a part) thereto. In on?ales v. Philippine $use$ent and a$in5 Corporation,"' 2itin5 :onilla v. :ar2ena,"* we de2lared that the deter$ination of whether an a2tion survives the death of a part) de pends on the nature of the a2tion and the da$a5e sued for. =e eApli2ated In the 2auses of a2tion whi2h survive the wron5 2o$plained of affe2ts pri$aril) and prin2ipall) propert) and propert) ri5hts, the in9uries to the person %ein5 $erel) in2idental, while in the 2auses of a2tion whi2h do not survive the in9ur) 2o$plained of is to the person, the propert) and ri5hts of propert) affe2ted %ein5 in2idental A A A. In the 2ase at %ar, %oth parties a22use the other of unl awfull) deprivin5 the$ of their respe2tive ri5hts to a26uire the su%9e2t propert), to5ether with the house %uilt thereon, %) $eans of an (S 5rant fro$ the State. Evidentl), what are pri$aril) and prin2ipall) affe2ted herein are the propert) and propert) ri5hts of the parties, and an) in9uries to their persons i.e., da$a5es3 are onl) in2idental. Su2h propert) and propert) ri5hts survived Edwino the appellate 2ourt also 2ited the e6uall) esta%lished prin2iple that the relation of attorne) and 2lient is ter$inated %) the death of the 2li ent. In the a%sen2e of a retainer fro$ the heirs or authori?ed representatives of his de2eased 2lient, the attorne) would thereafter have no further power or authorit) to appear or ta!e an) further a2tion in the 2ase, save to infor$ the 2ourt of the 2lientMs death and ta!e the ne2essar) steps to safe5uard the de2easedMs ri5hts in the 2ase. Gpon appeal to us, we found that the Court of ppeals 5ravel) erred in not
followin5 the Rule and re6uirin5 the appearan2e of the le5al representative of the de2eased and instead dis$issin5 the appeal of the latter who had )et to %e su%stituted in the pendin5 appeal. =e held that Respondent 2ourt therefore erred in rulin5 that sin2e upon the de$ise of the part)-appellant, the attorne)-2lient relationship %etween her and her 2ounsels 0was auto$ati2all) severed and ter$inated,0 whatever pleadin5s filed % ) said 2ounsel with it after the death of said appellant 0are $ere s2raps of paper.0 If at all, due to said death on (a) ", 1#* and severan2e of the attorne)-2lient relationship, further pro2eedin5s and spe2ifi2all) the runnin5 of the ori5inal 4-da) period for filin5 the appellantMs %rief should %e le5all) dee$ed as havin5 %een auto$ati2all) suspended, until the proper su%stitution of the de2eased appellant %) her eAe2utor or ad$inistrator or her heirs shall have %een effe2ted within the ti$e set %) respondent 2ourt pursuant to the 2ited Rule. AAAA Pres2indin5 fro$ the fore5oin5, 9usti2e and e6uit) di2tate under the 2ir2u$stan2es of the 2ase at %ar that the rules, while ne2essar) for the speed) and orderl) ad$inistration of 9usti2e, should not %e applied with the ri5idit) and infleAi%ilit) of respondent 2ourtMs resolutions. =hat should 5uide 9udi2ial a2tion is the prin2iple that a part) liti5ant is to %e 5iven the fullest opportunit) to esta%lish the $erits of his 2o$plaint or defense rather than for hi$ to lose life, li%ert), honor or propert) on te2hni2alities. A A A. "# E$phases supplied.3 In this 2ase, tt). Restor is in $u2h the sa$e situation as lorentina or, at the ver) least, to dire2t the 2ounsel to furnish the 2ourt with the n a$es and addresses of su2h representative@s. Sin2e tt). Restor filed the (otion for Re2onsideration within the re5le$entar) period and no lon5er re6uested for suspension@eAtension of ti$e to do so, the O ffi2e of the President need not suspend the runnin5 of said re5le$entar) period as in eirs of . Nu5uid ;da. de a%erer, %ut it 2ould have deferred an) a2tion on said (otion until a su%stitution had %een effe2ted and it had as2ertained that the su%stituted heirs 2hose to retain tt). Restor +" he is o%li5ated %) his 2lient and the 2ourt to do what the interest of his 2lient re6uires until the end of liti5ation or his representation is ter$inated for$all) and there is a ter$ination of re2ord. ++ nd the onl) wa) the Offi2e of the President 2ould have as2ertained whether tt). Restor still had the authorit) to file the (otion for Re2onsideration on %ehalf of Edwino
Interestin5l), if, as ar5ued %) the Offi2e of the President and the Court of ppeals, tt). Restor no lon5er had the personalit) to represent Edwino upon the latter su2h findin5 would have li!ewise %een erroneous. part) $a) have two or $ore law)ers wor!in5 in 2olla%oration in a 5iven liti5ation, +'%ut the fa2t that a se2ond attorne) enters his appearan2e for the sa$e part) does not ne2essaril) raise the presu$ption that the authorit) of the first attorne) has %een withdrawn.+* The se2ond 2ounsel should onl) %e treated as a 2olla%oratin5 2ounsel despite his appearan2e as 0the new 2ounsel of re2ord.0 law)er is presu$ed to %e properl) authori?ed to represent an) 2ause in whi2h he appears>+/ the se2ond 2ounsel, in this 2ase tt). Restor, is presu$ed to have a2ted within his authorit) as 2olla%oratin5 2ounsel when he filed the (otion for Re2onsideration of the u5ust "&&+ De2ision of the O ffi2e of the President. inall), we stop short of resolvin5 the issue of whose (S should %e 5iven due 2ourse, %e2ause in order to do so, we $ust first $a!e findin5s of fa2t 2on2ernin5 the authenti2it) and validit) of the ffidavit of Relin6uish$ent@Sale of Ri5ht dated # O2to%er 1#/#, alle5edl) eAe2uted %) :alli5i in favor of Edwino. It $ust %e noted that the DENR and the Offi2e of the President $ade diver5ent findin5s thereon. =e 2annot, as of )et, $a!e su2h findin5s 5iven the derth of eviden2e on re2ord. To arrive at an ulti$ate deter$ination, the re$and of the 2ase to the Court of ppeals is in order, so that it 2an 5ive due 2ourse to the Petition for Review in C-.R. SP No. /1+&. Ti$e and a5ain, we have stated that this Court is not a trier of fa2t or otherwise stru2turall) 2apa2itated to re2eive and evaluate eviden2e de novo, unli!e the Court of ppeals. The Court of ppeals 5enerall) has the authorit) to review findin5s of fa2t, and even hold h earin5s for further re2eption of eviden2e. Its 2on2lusions as to findin5s of fa2t are 5enerall) a22orded 5reat respe2t %) this Court. It is a %od) that is full ) 2apa2itated and has a surfeit of eAperien2e in appre2iatin5 fa2tual $atters, in2ludin5 do2u$entar) eviden2e. W5ERE*ORE, pre$ises 2onsidered, the instant Petition is PRT7J RNTED. The assailed twin Resolutions dated "# Nove$%er "&&' and " (a) "&&* of the Court of ppeals in C-.R. SP No. /1+& are RE;ERSED and SET SIDE, insofar as the) affir$ed the de2larations of the Offi2e of the President in the latter and that, sin2e no $otion for re2onsideration or appeal had %een ti$el) filed, the said De2ision dated u5ust "&&+ of the O ffi2e of the President had %e2o$e final and eAe2utor). The 2ase is here%) RE(NDED to the Court of ppeals, whi2h is ORDERED to 5ive due 2ourse to the Petition for Review filed in C-.R. SP No. /1+& and to hold further pro2eedin5s in a22ordan2e with this De2ision. SO ORDERED.
