ROSALIE ABANERO AHARAJA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. JULBARRI ATING AHARAJA, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Aharaja versus Aharaja

The Case

This is the case of Rosalie Abanero Aharaja against her husband Julbarri Ating Aharaja. Rosalie sought and obtained a protection order against Julbarri, and Julbarri appealed that order to the Supreme Court. The case matters because the husband died while his appeal was pending, and the Court had to decide whether an appeal from a protection order survives the death of the respondent. The answer turns on a single question: is the action one that affects property and property rights, or one that affects the person? The Court held that it is personal, and so it died with him.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 61 of Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, issued a Permanent Protection Order in favor of Rosalie in Civil Case Number 1421. Julbarri appealed, and the trial court issued an Omnibus Order dated February 2, 2009, which Julbarri sought to set aside. The appeal went up to the Supreme Court.

While the appeal was pending, Rosalie filed her Appellee's Brief on August 10, 2010, and informed the Court that Julbarri had died, attaching his Certificate of Death. On February 9, 2011, the Court directed Julbarri's counsel to comment or manifest on the alleged death. On March 14, 2011, his counsel, Atty. Eddie G. Aba, filed a Manifestation confirming the death, saying that none of the client's immediate family informed him and that they could no longer be contacted. The Court then resolved the appeal.

Facts

Rosalie Abanero Aharaja obtained a Permanent Protection Order against her husband, Julbarri Ating Aharaja, from the Regional Trial Court of Kabankalan City. Julbarri appealed the order, and the trial court issued an Omnibus Order dated February 2, 2009, which he also sought to set aside.

While the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, Julbarri died. Rosalie filed her Appellee's Brief on August 10, 2010, disclosing the death and attaching the Certificate of Death.

The Court directed Julbarri's counsel to comment on the report of death. Counsel confirmed it in a Manifestation filed on March 14, 2011, stating that the family had not informed him and could no longer be contacted. With the respondent dead, the Court had to determine whether the appeal could still proceed.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal from the Permanent Protection Order survives the death of the respondent-appellant.
• Whether or not the protection order, being directed against the person of the respondent, abates upon his death so that the appeal can no longer be continued.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute. It applies the rule on survival of actions stated in Bonilla versus Barcena, which provides:

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 of 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.

This test governs whether the appeal may continue after the respondent's death, and it is the test the Court applied to dismiss the appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal does not survive. Applying the criterion in Bonilla versus Barcena, it examined the nature of the action and the damage sued for. The appeal is personal because the protection order that is its subject is directed against the respondent-appellant. It does not involve property or property rights. Under the test, where the injury complained of is to the person and property is merely incidental, the cause of action does not survive.

On the second issue, the Court held that the protection order against Julbarri abated upon his death. It does not survive to any heirs or legal representatives of the respondent-appellant. Because the order abated, the appeal could no longer be continued and had to be dismissed.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, whether an action survives the death of a party depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. Second, actions that survive are those where the wrong complained of affects primarily and principally property and property rights, with injury to the person merely incidental. Third, actions that do not survive are those where the injury complained of is to the person, with property and rights of property merely incidental. Fourth, an appeal from a protection order is personal, because the order is directed against the respondent and does not involve property or property rights. Fifth, such a protection order abates upon the respondent's death and does not survive to his heirs or legal representatives, so the appeal must be dismissed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, because the protection order abated upon the death of the respondent-appellant and the appeal could no longer be continued.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an action survives death only where the wrong affects primarily property and property rights, and a protection order against the person abates upon the respondent's death. Examiners use this case to test the survival of actions under the Bonilla versus Barcena test, and to test whether a personal protection order can outlive the respondent against whom it was issued.