Scribd
Upload
164 views1 page

Sumaljap v. Spouses Literato G.R. No. 149787 June 18 2008

1) Josefa Maglasang filed a case to nullify a deed of sale of property between her and respondent spouses. She claimed the deed was falsified. 2) Josefa died during the case. The petitioner sought to be substituted, claiming to have bought the property from Josefa. 3) The RTC denied the petition for substitution, finding the petitioner was not one of Josefa's legal heirs based on the rules of civil procedure for substitution upon a party's death. The full-blood sister was ordered to appear instead.

Uploaded by

Jethro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
164 views1 page

Sumaljap v. Spouses Literato G.R. No. 149787 June 18 2008

1) Josefa Maglasang filed a case to nullify a deed of sale of property between her and respondent spouses. She claimed the deed was falsified. 2) Josefa died during the case. The petitioner sought to be substituted, claiming to have bought the property from Josefa. 3) The RTC denied the petition for substitution, finding the petitioner was not one of Josefa's legal heirs based on the rules of civil procedure for substitution upon a party's death. The full-blood sister was ordered to appear instead.

Uploaded by

Jethro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Sumaljap v.

Spouses Literato
G.R. No. 149787, June 18, 2008

FACTS
Josefa D. Maglasang (Josefa) filed with the RTC a complaint for the nullity of the deed of sale of real
property purportedly executed between her as vendor and the spouses Diosdidit and Menendez Literato
as vendees. Josefa and Menendez are sisters who inherited Lot 1220-D and Lot 1220-E respectively.
Respondent spouses answered with counterclaim denying that the deed of sale was falsified and Josefa
has wrongfully occupied both lots and leased the same, thus a complaint for the declaration of the
inexistence of lease contract, recovery of possession of land, and damages against Josefa was filed.
Josefa died during the pendency of the civil case, in which the proposed substitution by the petitioner
followed after buying Lot 1220-D from Remismundo Maglasang. Prior to Josefa’s death, she executed a
Quitclaim Deed over Lot 1220-D in favor of Remismundo. The RTC denied the petition for substitution
and ordered the appearance of Michaeles, being the full-blood sister of Josefa.

ISSUE
The issue is whether or not the petitioner had effectively been subrogated to the rights of Josefa over the
property under litigation at the time she died.

HELD/RULING
No. The rule on substitution in case of death of a party is governed by Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure which states that the heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted
for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. The duty of counsel under the aforecited provision is
to inform the court within thirty (30) days after the death of his client of the fact of death, and to give the
name and address of the deceased's legal representative or representatives. Significantly, the person -
now the present petitioner - that counsel gave as substitute was not one of those mentioned under
Section 16, Rule 3.

You might also like