HEIRS OF FRANCISCA MEDRANO, NAMELY YOLANDA R. MEDRANO, ALFONSO R. MEDRANO, JR., EDITA M. ALFARO, MARITES M. PALENTINOS, AND GIOVANNI MEDRANO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL REPRESEN…

Heirs of Medrano versus De Vera

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the heirs of Francisca Medrano against Estanislao De Vera. Medrano had sued the heirs of Hilaria and Elena to quiet title and confirm her ownership of a parcel of land, and De Vera, who took a renunciation of the same hereditary rights during the pendency of that suit, asked to be allowed to answer and defend. The case matters because it fixes the procedural standing of a transferee pendente lite — a person who acquires the litigated property while the case is pending — and teaches when the trial court must try the case on that transferee's answer instead of proceeding against defaulting defendants ex parte.

Procedural History

Medrano filed her complaint for quieting of title, reconveyance, reformation of instrument, and partition with damages before Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan. De Vera filed an answer with counterclaim as transferee of some of the defendants' rights. The trial court admitted that answer but declared the named defendants in default. Medrano then moved to present evidence ex parte against the defaulting defendants, and the trial court granted the motion. Later, the trial court set aside its order admitting De Vera's answer and directed him to file a pleading in intervention; De Vera did not comply. The trial court then rendered judgment in Medrano's favor, denied De Vera's motion for reconsideration on the ground that he was not a party, and ordered entry of judgment and execution. De Vera went to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari and mandamus. The appellate court granted the petition, found grave abuse of discretion, and remanded the case for further trial. Medrano's motion for reconsideration was denied, so the heirs of Medrano came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Flaviana De Gracia owned a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title. When she died intestate in 1980, her half-sisters Hilaria and Elena became her compulsory heirs. In September 1982, Hilaria and Elena executed a private document waiving their hereditary rights in the land in favor of Francisca Medrano, in consideration of the expenses Medrano had incurred for Flaviana's medication, hospitalization, wake, and burial. Medrano built her house on the land, and some of the heirs later confirmed the waiver in her favor.

Because other children refused to sign a similar renunciation, Medrano filed her complaint in April 2001 against several of them, and caused a notice of lis pendens to be annotated on the title. While the case was pending, some of the defendants executed a deed of renunciation of their rights in favor of Estanislao De Vera. De Vera then filed an answer with counterclaim, claiming to be the real party in interest and attacking the earlier waiver as void for want of consideration.

The trial court admitted De Vera's answer but declared the named defendants in default. Medrano presented her evidence ex parte, and the case was submitted for resolution. Only afterward did the trial court set aside the admission of De Vera's answer and require him to file a pleading in intervention, which he never did. Judgment was rendered for Medrano, and De Vera's motion for reconsideration was denied because he was not considered a party.

Issues

• Whether or not De Vera could participate in the case without filing a motion to intervene.
• Whether or not De Vera is bound by the judgment rendered against his transferors.
• Whether or not it was proper for the Court of Appeals to take cognizance of De Vera's petition for certiorari and mandamus.

Applicable Provisions

Section 19 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 19. Transfer of interest. In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party.

This provision governs whether De Vera, as transferee pendente lite, may be substituted for or joined with the original defendants.

Section 3, paragraph c of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides:

Effect of partial default. When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action against several defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented.

This provision required the trial court to try the case on De Vera's answer rather than allow an ex parte presentation of evidence against the defaulting defendants.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that De Vera's interest is not independent of or severable from that of the named defendants. As transferee pendente lite, he is deemed joined in the pending action from the moment the transfer is perfected, and his participation should have been allowed on due process considerations. Intervention was unnecessary because he was not a stranger to the action. The Court ruled that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in refusing to let him participate and in requiring a pleading in intervention after the evidence had already been taken ex parte.

On the second issue, the Court held that De Vera would be bound by any judgment against his transferors under the rules of res judicata. Precisely because the ex parte proceeding would produce a default judgment binding him, the trial court should have tried the case on the basis of his answer, which is deemed adopted by the non-answering defendants. The Court quoted the rule it applied:

When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action against several defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented.

On the third issue, the Court held that certiorari before the Court of Appeals was the proper remedy. An ordinary appeal would have been illusory, since the trial court treated De Vera as a non-party whose notice of appeal would certainly have been denied. Certiorari lies to correct errors of jurisdiction where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in law.

Doctrine

A transferee pendente lite is bound by the judgment against his transferors under the rules of res judicata, and his interest cannot be tried separately from theirs. Where the transferee files an answer while the transferor is declared in default, the case must be tried on the basis of the transferee's answer and with his participation, consistent with Section 3, paragraph c of Rule 9. Under Section 19 of Rule 3, substitution or joinder is addressed to the court's discretion, but that discretion must be exercised to protect the parties' interests and their right to due process. A judgment rendered in violation of these rules is void, cannot attain finality, and its execution has no basis in law.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals remanding the case for further trial with De Vera participating was affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a transferee pendente lite is bound by the judgment against his transferors, so if he files an answer while they are in default, the case must be tried on his answer and with his participation. Examiners use this case on the effects of a transfer of interest during litigation, on partial default under Rule 9, and on certiorari as a substitute for a lost appeal.