CARABEO VS. DINGCO
TOPIC: DEATH
OF PARTY - EFFECTS
Facts: 1990, petitioner entered into a contract
denominated as "Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Karapatan sa Lupa"
with Spouses Dingco whereby petitioner agreed to sell his rights over a 648 sqm
parcel of unregistered land for P38k.
1994, respondents learned that the land had been registered under
Carabeo’s name. They offered to pay the balance but petitioner declined,
drawing them to file a complaint before the Katarungan Pambarangay. No
settlement was reached. Hence, respondent filed a complaint for specific
performance before the RTC.
In 2001, petitioner passed away. RTC ruled in favor of Dinco. The
records do not show that petitioner’s counsel informed RTC of his death and
that proper substitution was effected in accordance with Sec 16, Rule 3.
Petitioner’s counsel filed a Notice of Appeal with the CA but the latter
affirmed the RTC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied,
the present petition for review was filed by petitioner’s son.
Issue: WON
petitioner’s death rendered respondents’ complaint against him dismissible.
Held: NO. 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 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.
In the present case, respondents are pursuing a property right arising
from the kasunduan, whereas petitioner is invoking nullity of the kasunduan to
protect his proprietary interest. Assuming arguendo, however, that the
kasunduan is deemed void, there is a corollary obligation of petitioner to
return the money paid by respondents, and since the action involves property
rights, it survives.
No comments:
Post a Comment