G.R. No. L-5629. October 11, 1954

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan rendered in civil case No. 11206, which declared that the
judgment rendered in civil case No. 8967 of the same Court and the
judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR No. 2903-R reversing it on
appeal are binding upon plaintiff Lili Sison Jaranilla but that said
judgments,, in so far as the plaintiffs Lita Sison Kalaw, Zenaida
Sison, Bonifacio Sison, Jr., and Rufo Sison are concerned, are null and
void for lack of jurisdiction over their persons by the courts
rendering them; that the writ of execution in pursuance thereof issued
therein against the aforesaid plaintiffs is null and void; and that
after the judgment rendered herein shall have become final, said
plaintiffs will be allowed to present evidence in support of the second
cause of action alleged in their complaint, without costs. The judgment
appealed from was rendered on a stipulation of facts which reads, as
follows:

Come now the parties in the above-entitled case and in order to simplify the proceedings agree on the following facts:

1. That in Civil Case No. 8967 of this Court of Pangasinan,
   Consolacion Gonzales, Vicenta, Carlos, Belen, Asela, Salud and Angela,
   all surnamed Puzon, widow and children of the deceased Rafael Puzon,
   respectively, were the plaintiffs, and Lourdes Ichon Vda. de Sison, was
   the original defendant.

2. That in her
   amended answer of June 13, 1946, in said case, the defendant therein,
   Lourdes lehon Sison, stated that “it would be necessary to include (in
   the complaint) all the children of the deceased Bonifacio Sison
   (husband of defendant Lourdes Ichon) in substitution of the deceased;
   that the legitimate children are: Lili Sison, of legal age, married to
   Antonio Jaranilla, Lita Amelia Sison, 19 years, Zenaida Sison, 17
   years, Bonifacio Sison, Jr., 15 years, and Rufo Sison, 12 years, all
   residing with defendant Lourdes Ichon de Sison in Urdaneta, Pangasinan,
   and that inasmuch as the last four are still minors, it would be
   necessary that a guardian ad litem be appointed for them, and it is suggested that defendant Lourdes Ichon de Sison be appointed as such.

3. That on June 25, 1946, the plaintiffs in said case again amended their
   complaint by naming therein as co-defendants the above-mentioned
   children of the deceased Bonifacio Sison and requested that their
   mother, the original defendant, be appointed as their guardian ad litem
   in the case, but Antonio Jaranilla, husband of Lili Sison Jaranilla,
   however, was not included as one of the party defendants. The age and
   civil status of the children as stated in paragraph 2 hereof is hereby
   admitted by the parties to be true and correct at the time of the
   filing of the amended complaint just mentioned.

4. That on July 1, 1946, the Court issued the following order:

“No objection having been
presented by the defendants to the admission of the second amended
complaint filed by the plaintiffs in the above-entitled case, the same
is hereby admitted.

“The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to issue the corresponding
summons again the new defendants Lili Sison and the minors Lita Amelia
Sison, Zenaida Sison, Bonifacio Sison, Jr., and Rufo Sison, through
their guardian ad litem
Lourdes Ichon.” The plaintiffs herein agree that the above order was in
fact issued without admitting that Lourdes Ichon Sison had already then
been appointed their guardian ad litem.

5. That on July 1, 194G, the Court issued summons
   addressed “to Lili Sison, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and the minors Lita
   Amelia Sison, Zenaida Sison, Bonifacio Sison, Jr., and Rufo Sison,
   repre sented by their guardian ad lilem, Lourdes Ichon, Urdaneta, Pangasinan,” which was served on Lourdes I. Sison on July 9, 1946, and on
   Lili Sison Jaranilla on July 15, 1946, but no summons were personally
   ever served to each of the minors Lita Amelia Sison, Zenaida Sison,
   Bonifacio Sison, Jr., and Rufo Sison. A certified copy of said summons
   and its return is attached as Annex “B” of the herein plaintiffs’
   motion for reconsideration dated July 14, 1950, and is hereby
   incorporated by references as part of this stipulation of facts.

6. That the property object of the litigation in said case was originally
   the conjugal property of the spouses Bonifacio Sison and Lourdes Ichon,
   which the therein plaintiffs, through Rafael Puzon, claimed to have
   acquired from Josefa Macasieb Vda. de Sison.

7. That on July 17, 1946, Attorneys Perez, Gayagoy, Abenojar and Ignacio
   D. Castillo, filed an answer to the amended complaint stated to be on
   behalf of the new defendants Lili Sison, Lita Amelia Sison, Zenaida
   Sison, Bonifacio Sison, Jr., and Rufo Sison. This stipulation is
   subject to the plaintiffs’ reservation in paragraph 14 hereof.

8. That on September 1, 1946, Attys. Perez, Abenojar and Ignacio D.
   Castillo, filed an answer, special defense and counterclaim, alleging
   among others, “that the defendant Lourdes Ichon Vda. de Sison and the;
   other defendants, hereby reproduce all the allegations stated by them
   in the last answer dated June 13, 1946 and July 17, 1946, filed by them
   in this case, as their answer to the last and second amended complaint
   of the plaintiffs.” This stipulation is also subject to plaintiffs’
   reservation in paragraph 14.

9. That Atty.
   Ignacio D. Castillo, appearing for the defendants, stated in an
   affidavit attached to the amended answer of September 5, 1946, “that
   Lili Sison, Lita Amelia Sison, Zenaida Sison, Bonifacio Sison, Jr.,
   were only summoned last July, 1946, and that they have so far filed
   only one answer.” This stipulation admits as a fact that such affidavit
   was filed without the herein plaintiffs admitting its materiality and
   competency which they herewith question and is subject to the
   reservation in paragraph 14.

10. That upon
    petition filed by attorney for the plaintiffs in said case, the hearing
    of Civil Case No. 8967 was set for September 12, 1946, and on said date
    the Court issued the following order:

“Upon petition of Atty. Ignacio D, Castillo, the
petitioner herein, Lourdes Ichon Vda. de Sison, is hereby appointed as
guardian ad litem of her minor children, namely, Lita Amelia
Sison, Zenaida Sison, Bonifacio Sison, Jr., and Rufo Sison, to
represent them in this proceeding. The said petitioner is hereby
required to take her oath before discharging her duties as such
guardian ad litem.”

11. That the minutes of the Court on the hearing on September
12. 1946, certifies, among other things, that “before proceeding with the
    hearing of the case, counsel for the defendants, prayed that defendant
    Lourdes Ichon Vda. de Sison be appointed as guardian ad litem
    of her minor children Lita Amelia Sison, Zenaida Sison, Bonifacio
    Sison, Jr., and Rufo Sison to represent them in this case. The Court
    granted the petition. Whereupon, defendant Lourdes Ichon Vda. de Sison
    took her oath as such guardian ad litem before Deputy Clerk of this Court, Mr. Genaro Ferrer.

13. That on February 11, 1948, upon motion of the defendants therein, the
    Court of First Instance rendered an order dismissing the complaint in
    Civil Case No. 8967 after plaintiffs had introduced all their evidence
    and after the defendant had presented five witnesses, one of them being
    Lourdes Ichon who was still testifying: but before the defense had
    completed their evidence.

14. That the
    plaintiffs brought up the ease on appeal to the Court of Appeals, G. R.
    No. 2903-K and said Court of Appeals, on September 27, 1949, reversed
    the order of dismissal and rendered a decision in favor of the
    plaintiffs, applying the doctrine in the case of Arroyo vs. Azur, 43 Off. Gaz., 54.

15. That in the Court of First Instance, in the Court of Appeals and in the
    Supreme Court, Attys. Perez, Santos & Abenojar, Victoriano Gayagoy,
    Ignacio D. Castillo, Aquino & Alias and Porfirio V. Sison have made
    it appear in all their pleadings and appearances that they were
    appearing for all of the defendants in the case, but the herein
    plaintiffs deny that they had authorized said attorneys to represent
    them in any way in said Civil Case No. 8967.

16. That copy of the motion for the execution of the judgment and copy of
    the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto were served upon the
    attorney of record of the defendants, but were not served personally
    again upon the herein plaintiffs.

17. That
    in accordance with the writ of execution, the Provincial Sheriff of
    Pangasinan placed the herein defendants in possession of the land
    involved in Civil Case No. 8967.

18. The
    parties agree that the plaintiffs herein, except Lita Sison, will
    testify that they had not known of Civil Case No. 8967 until their
    mother informed them about it after the denial of the Supreme Court of
    the petition for certiorari, without the defendants admitting the
    veracity of such fact.

19. That counsel for
    the plaintiffs herein married the plaintiff Lita Sison on December 16,
    1948, and was practising attorney since 1945, but claims that he had no
    knowledge of Civil Case No. 8967 until he was informed by his
    mother-in-law, Lourdes Sison, of its defeat.

Wherefore, the parties submit the first cause of
action for decision on the above stipulation of facts, with the
reservation contained in plaintiffs’ motion of September 20, 1951.

Parties
further pray that they be granted a period of 10 days from date to
submit simultaneous memorandum and an additional 5 days to submit reply
memorandum.

Lingayen, Pangasinan, September 20, 1951.

(Sgd.)
AUGUSTO KALAW                                                 
                                                 
                                       (Sgd.) VICENTE BENGZON
Attorney for the plaintiffs                         
                                                 
                                                         Attorney for the defendants

and the following additional stipulation of facts designated as paragraph 13-a of the stipulation:

That counsel for the defendants filed in the Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari against the decision of the
Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-3444, and the Supreme Court in its
resolution of January 31, 1960, ordered the dismissal of the petition
for certiorari for lack of merit without requiring the respondents to
answer it. This stipulation is subject to the reservation in paragraph
14.

There is no doubt that plaintiff Lili Sison Jaranilla is bound by
the judgment rendered in civil case No. 8967 of the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan and reversed on appeal by the Court of Appeals
in CA-GR No. 2903-R, because her husband was not a necessary party, the
controversy therein involved being her share in the parcels of land
which she had inherited from her deceased father.

As to the second point raised and decided in favor of the rest of
the plaintiffs by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, it appears
that the plaintiffs who were minors except Lili Sison Jaranilla were
not summoned in the action (civil case No. 8967), as provided for in
section 10, Rule 7; that Lourdes Ichon Vda. de Sison, the defendant
therein, represented to the Court that as her children were necessary
parties they should be joined as defendants; that on 25 June 1946, as
prayed for by the defendant therein, the plaintiffs therein amended
their complaint impleading said children who, as the agreed statement
of facts stipulates with the exception of Lili Sison who was of age,
were minors over 15 years of age and Rufo, 12 years old; that on 1 July
1946 the Court admitted the amended complaint and ordered the new
defendants to be summoned; that the summons issued on that date by the
clerk of court was served on the 9th of that month upon Lourdes Ichon
Vda. de Sison and on the 15th of that month upon Lili Sison Jaranilla;
that on 17 July 1946 attorneys Perez, Gayagoy, Abenojar and Ignacio D.
Castillo filed an answer to the amended complaint in behalf of the
impleaded defendants Lili Sison Jaranilla, Lita Sison, Zenaida Sison,
Bonifacio Sison, Jr., and Rufo Sison; that on 12 September 1946, as
prayed for by the attorney appearing for the defendants therein,
Lourdes Ichon Vda. de Sison was appointed guardian ad litem
to represent her minor children and qualified as such by taking her
oath before deputy clerk1 of court Genaro Ferrer; and that in the Court
of First Instance, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, attorneys Perez,
Gayagoy, Santos & Abenojar, Ignacio D. Castillo, Aquino & Alias
and Porfirio V. Sison represented in all their pleadings that they were
appearing for all the defendants therein. Taking into consideration all
the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the
appearance of the attorneys in behalf of the minors in the action is
equivalent to service.^[1] The
denial by the minors of having authorized said attorneys to represent
them may be conceded but such denial does not destroy the presumption
that the services of the attorneys had been engaged by the guardian ad litem not only to represent her but also the minors. If the duly appointed guardian ad litem,
who is the mother of the minors, did not consider the summons served on
her alone as a summons also on her minor children, or if she did not
authorize her attorneys to represent her minor children, she should
have raised the question in the case before or during the trial or
thereafter but before judgment was rendered. The failure of the
guardian ad litem and of her attorneys to raise the point of
lack of summons service upon the minors personally is a waiver on the
part of said minors represented by their mother, their guardian ad litem,
to question the lack of such service upon them personally. As already
stated, the voluntary appearance of the attorneys not only for Lourdes
Ichon Vda. de Sison but also for the minors is equivalent to service.

The judgment appealed from, in so far as it annuls the judgment
rendered in civil case No. 8967 and the judgment of the Court of
Appeals in CA-GR No. 2903-R reversing it on appeal and the writ of
execution issued therein, is reversed, without pronouncement as to
costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L,, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Section 23, Rule 7