Page 1 of 2

G.R. No. 190823 : April 4, 2011

DOMINGO CARABEO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES NORBERTO and

SUSAN DINGCO, Respondents.

FACTS:

On July 10, 1990, Domingo Carabeo (petitioner) entered into a

contract denominated as Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Karapatan sa Lupa
(kasunduan) with Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco (respondents)
whereby petitioner agreed to sell his rights over a 648 square meter parcel
of unregistered land situated in Purok III, Tugatog, Orani, Bataan to
respondents for P38,000.

Upon the signing of the contract, the respondents paid an initial

amount of P10,000 and the remaining balance would be paid on
September 1990. However, when the respondents were about to pay the
balance, the petitioner refused to accept the amount due to an on-going
dispute over the land. Nevertheless, the respondents occasionally gave the
petitioner small sums of money which totaled P9,100. These amounts
were allegedly given due to the request of the petitioner.

Despite the respondents insistence of paying the remaining balance

of P19,800, the petitioner remained firm in his refusal. He reasoned that
he would register the land first. However, when the dispute was finally
settled and the registration of the land was made, the petitioner still
declined to accept the payment. Thus, forcing the respondents to file a
complaint before the Katarungan Pambarangay. Nevertheless, the parties
were not able to reach a settlement. Hence, the filing of a complaint for
specific performance before the RTC.

In the petitioners Answer, he alleged that the sale was void for
lack of object certain. The kasunduannot having specified the metes and
bounds of the land. In addition to that, he alleged that assuming that the
validity of the kasunduan is upheld, the respondent failed to comply with
their reciprocal obligation in paying the balance of the P28,000 on
September 1900. Thus, forcing him to accept the installment payments.

After the case was submitted for decision, the petitioner passed
away. However, the records do not show that petitioners counsel
 Page 2 of 2

informed the lower court of his death and that proper substitution was
effected. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents ordering them to sell
their rights over the land and to pay the costs of suit. The CA affirmed the
decision of the lower court.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the death of the petitioner causes dismissal of the

action filed by the respondents.

HELD:

When the wrong complained of affects property rights, the death of

the petitioner does not cause the dismissal of the case.

In Bonilla v. Barcena, it was held that the question as to whether an

action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage
sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained of
affects primarily and principally property and property rights, the injuries
to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which
do not survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the property and
rights of property affected being incidental.

Thus, in the present case, the respondents are pursuing a property

right arising from the kasunduan, whereas petitioner is invoking nullity of
the kasunduan to protect his proprietary interest. Since the action involves
property rights, it survives. Assuming arguendo, however, that the
kasunduan is deemed void, there is a corollary obligation of petitioner to
return the money paid by respondents.

It bears noting that trial on the merits was already concluded before
petitioner died. Since the trial court was not informed of petitioners
death, it may not be faulted for proceeding to render judgment without
ordering his substitution. Its judgment is thus valid and binding upon
petitioners legal representatives or successors-in-interest, insofar as his
interest in the property subject of the action is concerned.