JUAN SUMULONG, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TRINIDAD H. PARDO DE TAVERA, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSEFA MORAN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARIANO LIM, DE…

Sumulong versus Moran

The Case

This is the case of Sumulong versus Moran. Juan Sumulong, as administrator of the estate of Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, sued Josefa Moran, as administratrix of the estate of Mariano Lim, to foreclose a real mortgage on the defendant's property. The mortgage secured two claims totaling 15,000 pesos, long overdue. The defendant admitted the debt but raised a counterclaim and a special defense, and a third party, Consuelo Legarda, then came into the case claiming her own mortgage on the same property. The case matters because it fixes the procedural rule on intervention: a court acquires no jurisdiction over an intervenor's claim for affirmative relief unless the requirements of the law on notice and service are strictly met.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of First Instance as a suit to foreclose a real mortgage. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for the principal debt of 15,000 pesos, with interest, plus a penalty of 1,000 pesos, and allowed the defendant 200 pesos on her counterclaim, to be deducted from the plaintiff's award. The same court also rendered judgment in favor of the intervenor, Consuelo Legarda, for the full amount of her claim and to foreclose her mortgage. The defendant appealed, assigning as errors the admission of the intervention, the judgment rendered on it, the denial of her motions to reopen the case and for a new trial, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The case reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal.

Facts

The defendant's estate owed the plaintiff's estate two claims aggregating 15,000 pesos, due since November 1922, secured by a real mortgage on property of the defendant. The plaintiff also claimed interest at 125 pesos per month from December 1923, and 1,000 pesos for attorney's fees, expenses, and judicial costs.

The defendant admitted the indebtedness. She sought to recover 25,000 pesos on a counterclaim based on three grounds, and alleged as a special defense that a novation had released her from paying the 1,000 peso penalty.

In August 1925, Consuelo Legarda filed a bill of intervention, praying for judgment against the defendant for 10,000 pesos secured by a second mortgage on the same property, with interest at ten percent per annum and costs. The record showed that the defendant was never served with notice of the motion for intervention, and that the intervenor never served her with a copy of the bill or of any other pleading. Judgment was nonetheless rendered against the defendant and in favor of the intervenor for the full amount of her claim.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting and taking cognizance of the intervention of Consuelo Legarda despite noncompliance with the formalities required by law.
• Whether or not the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in rendering judgment for the intervenor on the complaint in intervention.
• Whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in denying the reopening of the case and the motion for a new trial.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Applicable Provisions

Section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

Such intervention, if permitted by the court, shall be made by complaint in regular form, filed in court, and may be answered or demurred to as if it were an original complaint. Notice of motion for such intervention shall be given to all parties to the action, and notice may be given by publication, in accordance with the provisions of this Code relating to publication, in cases where other notice is impracticable.

This provision governs how and on what terms a bill of intervention may be filed, and the Court held that noncompliance with it deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the intervenor's claim.

Ruling

On the first and second issues, the Court ruled for the defendant. The record showed that the defendant was not served with notice of the motion for intervention, and that the intervenor served her with no copy of the bill or of any other pleading, yet judgment was rendered against her for the full amount of the claim. The Court held that there is no legal principle upon which that judgment can be sustained. Section 121 expressly provides how and upon what terms a bill of intervention may be filed, and as to the defendant in particular, no attempt whatever was made to comply with it.

The Court added that where it is sought to foreclose a mortgage and to obtain affirmative relief against the defendant, a copy of the bill of intervention should also be served upon the defendants against whom the relief is sought, or upon their attorney of record. Without such service and compliance with Section 121, the court does not have any jurisdiction to render a decree on a bill of intervention.

On the third issue, the Court found no merit in the appeal as to the denial of reopening and new trial, and on the fourth issue, it found no merit in the appeal as to the judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant admitted the existence of the debt and the execution of the mortgage securing it. The trial court allowed the defendant 200 pesos on her counterclaim, and nothing in the record showed that this was error, or that there was merit in the special defenses alleged in her answer.

Doctrine

A bill of intervention must comply strictly with Section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The intervention must be made by complaint in regular form, and notice of the motion for intervention must be given to all parties to the action. Where the intervenor seeks to foreclose a mortgage and obtain affirmative relief against the defendant, a copy of the bill of intervention must also be served on the defendant or on the defendant's attorney of record. Without such notice and service, the court acquires no jurisdiction to render a decree on the bill of intervention, and any judgment rendered on it is null and void.

Disposition

The judgment in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed with costs, while the judgment in favor of the intervenor, Consuelo Legarda, was declared null and void, without prejudice to her right to obtain relief in another action and without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to enforce his judgment by execution; the defendant recovered costs on her appeal against the intervenor.

Remember This

Memorize the line that without notice to all parties and service of the bill of intervention, the court has no jurisdiction to render a decree on it, and the judgment is void. Examiners use this case to test the procedural requirements of intervention and the difference between a void judgment on an intervention and a valid judgment on the original complaint.