HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO VS COURT OF APPEALS

GR No. 91879, 6 July 1992

Grino-Aquino, J.

FACTS:
 This case involves an action for judicial partition of property with accounting & damages filed
by plaintiff Belen Cruz-Regoso against her husband, Maximo;
 The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff Belen Regoso and against defendant;
 On 17 January 1985, after the case had been submitted for decision, Maximo Regoso died;
 The problem arose when Maximo was not substituted as defendant by his heirs because the
trial court was not informed of his death until the decision was promulgated in 1988;
 On 29 Nov 1988, Maximo’s counsel, Atty. Adriano Javier Sr., filed a notice of appeal which was
approved by the trial court;
 Plaintiff Belen Cruz-Regoso moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the deceased
defendant ceased to have legal personality and that Atty. Javier’s authority to represent him
expired upon Maximo’s death. Therefore, the notice of appeal filed by Atty. Javier is invalid;
 The CA ruled in favor of Belen and dismissed Atty. Javier’s notice of appeal; hence, this petition
 Petitioner Heirs of Regoso allege that CA erred in dismissing their appeal and in failing to
declare that the trial court’s judgment was null and void;
ISSUE: Whether the supervening death of Maximo Regoso extinguished Belen’s action for partition
of their conjugal assets
RULING: No, Maximo’s death did not extinguish the action.

(L): Secs. 16-17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court - It is the duty of the attorney for the deceased
defendant to inform the court of his client’s death and to furnish the court with the names
and residences of the executor, administrator or legal representative of the deceased.

(A): In the case at bar, no such notice of death, nor a motion for substitution of the deceased
defendant, was ever made. Hence, the trial court could not be expected to know or take
judicial notice of the death of defendant, Maximo Regoso, without the proper manifestation
from his counsel. It must be remembered that the fault or negligence was Attorney
Javier’s alone.

The supervening death of the defendant, Maximo Regoso, did not extinguish his wife’s
action for partition of their conjugal assets, for it is an action that survives. The trial of the
case on the merits was already finished before the defendant died. Since it was not
informed about that event, the trial court may not be faulted for proceeding to render
judgment without ordering the substitution of the deceased defendant. The decision is
binding and enforceable against the successors-in-interest of the deceased litigant by title
subsequent to the commencement of the action.

Further, Atty. Javier’s appeal from the decision of the trial court was correctly dismissed by
the appellate court for upon the death of Maximo Regoso, Attorney Javier’s authority to
represent him also expired. The notice of appeal, which Attorney Javier filed on behalf of
the decedent was an unauthorized pleading, hence, invalid.