SPOUSES ERNESTO P. PILAPIL AND SONIA A. PILAPIL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. VIRGILIO, CONSUELO, FRANCIA, JUANA AND LOURDES, ALL SURNAMED FELIZMENIO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Pilapil versus Felizmenio

The Case

This is a lecture on Pilapil versus Felizmenio, a decision of the Supreme Court's Third Division. Spouses Ernesto and Sonia Pilapil sued the Felizmenio siblings to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of agricultural land in Barangay Panicuason, Naga City, which they had bought from Solomon De Jesus and which the Felizmenios later took over by virtue of a writ of execution in a forcible entry case. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of the rule on substitution of parties upon death and of the effect of a defendant's failure to appear at pre-trial. Second, it draws the line between an ejectment suit, which settles possession de facto only, and an accion reivindicatoria, an action to recover ownership, which settles possession de jure.

Procedural History

The Pilapils filed their complaint for recovery of ownership and possession, or in the alternative, warranty against eviction with damages, before the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 19. The Felizmenios failed to appear at the pre-trial, and the trial court allowed the Pilapils to present evidence ex parte. The trial court then rendered its decision in favor of the Pilapils, declaring them lawful owners entitled to possession, ordering the Felizmenios to surrender possession, and awarding monthly damages and attorney's fees. The Felizmenios moved for reconsideration, which was denied. They then appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the rendition of judgment without formal substitution of deceased parties and the alleged denial of due process to the heirs of the deceased.

Facts

Solomon and Teofila De Jesus were the absolute owners and actual possessors of a portion of Lot 979 of the Naga Cadastre, an untitled agricultural land covered by a tax declaration in the name of the Heirs of Bartolome De Jesus. On July 27, 2003, Solomon sold a portion of 1,813 square meters to Ernesto Pilapil for 90,000 pesos by a Deed of Absolute Sale acknowledged before a notary public. The Pilapils took actual possession, built a perimeter fence and a house, and designated a caretaker.

In June 2007, the Felizmenios, through intimidation of the caretaker, took possession of the property, invoking a writ of execution issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Naga City in their forcible entry case against Solomon De Jesus. The Pilapils had no knowledge of that case. On February 1, 2008, they demanded the return of possession within fifteen days, but the demand was ignored. They then filed suit in March 2008.

During the proceedings, Juana Felizmenio died in August 2010. The trial court suspended proceedings and gave counsel fifteen days to effect substitution, but counsel never submitted the names of the substituted heirs despite almost six months and several settings. At the pre-trial of June 21, 2011, the Felizmenios and their counsel failed to appear despite notice, so the trial court allowed the Pilapils to present evidence ex parte. Virgilio Felizmenio died in January 2012, and the notice of his death came only after the Pilapils had formally offered their evidence.

Issues

• Whether or not the Felizmenios were denied due process because of the failure to effect the substitution of the deceased parties.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly declared the Pilapils as the lawful owners and entitled to the possession of the subject parcel of land.

Applicable Provisions

Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

This provision places the burden of initiating substitution on the counsel of the deceased party, and it is the provision the Felizmenios invoked and the Court construed.

Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. — The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.

This provision supplied the authority for the trial court to receive the Pilapils' evidence ex parte after the Felizmenios failed to appear at the pre-trial.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no denial of due process. Under Section 16, Rule 3, it is the counsel's duty to inform the court of the death and to give the names of the legal representatives. The trial court suspended proceedings and gave counsel fifteen days, yet counsel never complied despite almost six months and repeated settings. As the Court put it, due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he has chosen, for whatever reason, not to be heard. As to Virgilio, the notice of death came long after the Felizmenios had been declared to have waived their right to present evidence, so his substituted heirs were entitled only to notice. The Court also upheld the ex parte presentation of evidence under Section 5, Rule 18, stressing that pre-trial is mandatory and that the defendant who fails to appear forfeits the opportunity to rebut or present evidence.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Pilapils were lawful owners entitled to possession. Ernesto was an innocent purchaser for value, having bought the untitled property under a valid Deed of Absolute Sale, relying on the tax declaration in the name of the Heirs of Bartolome De Jesus and on the extrajudicial settlement showing the portion allocated to Solomon. The sellers had been in actual possession before the sale, and there was no notice of any adverse claim. Preponderance of evidence favored the Pilapils, and the factual findings of the lower court were entitled to great weight. The Court also clarified that the Pilapils' action was an accion reivindicatoria, which includes recovery of possession, and that the Municipal Trial Court's decision in the forcible entry case settled only possession de facto, not ownership, and was therefore inconclusive on title. Finally, the Court deleted the award of attorney's fees because the trial court failed to state in the body of its decision the factual or legal reasons for the award.

Doctrine

• Under Section 16, Rule 3, it is the duty of the counsel of a deceased party to inform the court within thirty days of the death and to give the names and addresses of the legal representatives; failure to do so is a ground for disciplinary action, and the party cannot later claim denial of due process for a silence of his own choosing.
• Under Section 5, Rule 18, the failure of the defendant to appear at pre-trial allows the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
• An ejectment suit, whether forcible entry or unlawful detainer, resolves only possession de facto; any ruling on ownership is made only to resolve possession and is inconclusive. An accion reivindicatoria recovers ownership and necessarily includes possession de jure.
• One who buys an untitled property relying on a tax declaration and an extrajudicial settlement, paying full price without notice of any adverse claim, is an innocent purchaser for value.
• Attorney's fees must be justified by factual, legal, or equitable reasons stated in the body of the decision, not only in the dispositive portion.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision was affirmed with modification, deleting the award of attorney's fees.

Remember This

Memorize this line: due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he has chosen not to be heard. Examiners use this case for the substitution rule under Section 16, Rule 3, the ex parte consequence of a defendant's absence at pre-trial under Section 5, Rule 18, and the distinction between an ejectment suit and an accion reivindicatoria.