REV. FR. PASCUAL YPIL, PETITIONER, VS. HON. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, SPOUSES GRATAMENA LAO AND JOSE NUÑEZ, JOSEFA MATA ESPERA AND HER SPOUSE, WILFREDO O. YAP, OWNER OF JOYCE’S HOT PA…

Petitioner seeks the review of two orders of dismissal issued by
respondent Judge, the first dated June
8, 1978 in Civil Case No. DC-105 entitled “Rev. Fr. Pascual
Ypil, as guardian of the properties of the incompetent Antonio Lao, Plaintiff
vs. Charlie F. Adlawan and Spouses Ramon M. Durano and Beatriz D. Durano,
Defendants,” Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XVII in Danao
City which order reads;

“The ward, Antonio Lao, is already dead.  As a matter of fact, a separate action is
presently pending for the appointment of an administrator.  On the other hand, this case was prosecuted
by the plaintiff in his capacity as guardian of his properties by virtue of the
order in Sp. Proc. No. 123-JD dated September 4, 1975.  The death of the ward necessarily terminates
the guardianship.  Thereafter, all powers
and duties of the guardian ceases, except the duty to
make a proper accounting and settlement in court.

THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, this case is hereby dismissed, but
without prejudice.”

Petitioner moved on 29
June 1978 to reconsider the above-quoted order of dismissal arguing
that the case is a real action which survives even with the death of the real
party in interest who was under guardianship, citing Sec. 17, Rule 3 of the
Rules of Court.  The motion was, however,
denied by the court in its order of July
5, 1978 as follows:

“It should be noted that this case was filed by the plaintiff
strictly in his capa­city as guardian of the properties of the deceased having
specific preference to SP. PROC. NO. 123-JD and the Order dated September 4, 1975.  Otherwise stated, his authority stemmed from
said order.  The observation is repeated
that with the death of the ward, termination of guardianship follows as a
matter of consequence.  As of the time of
his death, all powers and duties of the guardian likewise ceased.  The authority to continue this case under such
capacity can hardly be validated even assuming pendency of Sp. Proc. No. DC?16, entitled Intestate Estate of Antonio Lao in which the
plaintiff at the same time was apparently the private choice as
administrator.  Up to the present his
appointment has not yet been formally extended. 
His appearance pursuant to Rule 3, Sec. 17 of the Rules of Court in
effect would be a premature commission. 
There is no assurance either that the plaintiff would be the person who
will eventually be appointed administrator until after the formal order has
been issued.

THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the Order of Dismissal but Without
Prejudice dated June 8, STANDS.”

The second order of dismissal sought to be reviewed is that
issued by the same respondent Judge, same court, dated June 29, 1978 in Civil Case No. DC-125 entitled
“Rev. Fr. Pascual M. Ypil, as Judicial Guardian of the incompetent Antonio
Lao, Plaintiff vs. Spouses Gratamena Lao and Jose Nuñez, et al.,
Defendants,” for annulment of deeds of sale and cancellation of tax
declarations, in practically the same tenor as that issued in Civil Case No. DC-105.

In both cases, petitioner as plaintiff below filed notices of
appeal on July 26, 1978 and
as the appeals involve purely a question of law, the appeals were directed to
the Supreme Court.  The records on appeal
having been approved, and forwarded to this Court in a Resolution dated October 13, 1978 of the First
Division, petitioner was required to pay the docket and legal research fund
fees and to file petitions for review on certiorari, which petitioner
has complied and the same are now before Us for
resolution.

The facts of the cases are not disputed.  In Civil Case No.
DC-105, petitioner as plaintiff therein filed the original complaint as
guardian of the properties of incompetent Antonio Lao, the same capacity when
he filed the amended complaint.  In Civil Case No. DC-125, petitioner as plaintiff therein
likewise instituted the complaint as judicial guardian of incompetent Antonio
Lao.  From the caption alone of the
complaints filed in these cases by the petitioner as well as from the various
pleadings of the defendants it is clear and evident that the actions were filed
by plaintiff in his representative capacity, thereby disclosing his prin­cipal
being the incompetent Antonio Lao and that said principal was the real party in
interest.

It also appears in the allegations of the original and amended
complaints in Civil Case No. DC-105 as well as the complaint
in Civil Case No. DC-125 that the real party in
interest is the incompetent Antonio Lao. 
Besides the averment’s that plaintiff was the “duly appointed
guardian of the incompetent Antonio Lao in Sp. Proc. No. l23-JD, Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court of Cebu” under paragraph 1, the succeeding
paragraphs allege that the incompetent ward was the original owner of the
parcel of land described therein, the alienation of which is sought to be
annulled on the ground of fraud and illegality and return thereof to
incompetent Lao’s estate.  Upon these
allegations there is no doubt that the actions were instituted in behalf of the
real party in interest who is the incompetent Antonio Lao or his estate.

Respondents contend that Fr. Ypil is the plaintiff in both civil
cases and not having died, Sec. 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court does not
apply.  We find no merit to this
contention.  The law provides:

“Sec. 17.  Death of party.-
After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall
order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear
and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or
within such time as may be granted.  If
the legal representative fails to appear within said time, the court may order
the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal representative of the
deceased within a time to be specified by the court, and the representative
shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the interest of the deceased.  The court charges involved in procuring such
appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs.  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 guardian ad–litem
for the minor heirs.”

During the pendency of Civil Cases Nos.
DC-105 and DC-125, the incompetent ward, Antonio Lao, died intestate on April
5, 1978 at Danao City leaving an estate and his surviving spouse, Rufina
Gonzales (second wife), and Dionisio H. Lao (son by the first marriage), and
Gratamena Lao (daughter by the second marriage) as his only heirs.  On April
28, 1978, heir Dionisio H. Lao filed a petition for letters of
administration before Branch XVII of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
presided over by herein respondent judge, which was docketed as Special
Proceedings No. DC-106.  On July
26, 1978, herein petitioner, then judicial guardian over the
properties of Antonio Lao, was appointed and issued letters of administration.

It may be true as respondents contend that petitioner is the
plaintiff in both cases but this is so only in form and in captions
thereof.  The real truth and substance of
the matter is that as plaintiff, petitioner was suing as guardian, the legal
representative of the real party in interest who is the incompetent ward and
under the peculiar facts of the case wherein admittedly the real party in
interest died during the pendency of the civil cases instituted by his guardian
in his behalf and admittedly also said guardian was appointed thereafter
administrator of the intestate estate of the incompetent ward and issued letters
of administration by the same judge presiding and acting in said civil cases,
the Rule cited above finds clear application and implementation.  Under said aforementioned Rule, the court
shall order the legal representative of the deceased in his capacity as adminis­trator
of the estate to appear for and in behalf of the interest of the deceased.  It therefore becomes the duty of petitioner
to appear as administrator of the estate and no longer as judicial guardian of
the incompetent ward.  The captions of
the pleadings must thus be amended.

There is no necessity of filing new civil actions for it would
serve no useful purpose in the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice
since the parties are already before the court and the issues have already been
joined.  Moreover, the actions or claims
survive, being for annulment of deeds of sale of real property belonging to the
estate.  And finally, the doubt entertained
by the respondent Judge on the probable appointment of petitioner as administrator
of the intestate estate had been finally resolved by the same Judge when he
later appointed petitioner as administrator of said estate and issued to him
the corresponding letters of administration.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the orders appealed
from are hereby set aside and the court a quo is hereby directed
to continue with the proceedings and act accordingly.  Without costs.

Petition granted.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ.,
concur.