202015896471436965466

   
Heirs of Francisca Medrano vs. De Vera    
G.R. 165770 August 9, 2010

FACTS:
This case concerns a 463-square meter parcel of land covered Flaviana De Gracia (Flaviana).  When Flaviana died
intestate in 1980, leaving her half-sisters Hilaria Martin-Paguyo (Hilaria) and Elena Martin-Alvarado (Elena) as her
compulsory heirs, Hilaria and Elena, by virtue of a private document waived all their hereditary rights to Flaviana’s
land in favor of Francisca Medrano (Medrano) in consideration of the expenses that she incurred for Flaviana’s
medication, hospitalization, wake and burial.  Some of their children affirmed the contents of the private document
executed by their deceased mothers.  To that end, they executed separate Deeds of Confirmation of Private
Document and Renunciation of Rights in favor of Medrano.
 
Due to the refusal of the other children to sign a similar renunciation, Medrano filed a Complaint in 2001 for
quieting of title, reconveyance, reformation of instrument, and/or partition with damages against Pelagia M. Paguyo-
Diaz (Pelagia), Faustina Paguyo-Asumio (Faustina), Jesus Paguyo (Jesus), Veneranda Paguyo-Abrenica, Emilio
a.k.a. Antonio Alvarado, Francisca Alvarado-Diaz (Francisca) and Estrellita Alvarado-Cordero (Estrellita) before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta, Pangasinan.   

On April 2, 2002, respondent Estanislao D. De Vera (De Vera) filed an Answer with Counterclaim, presented
himself as the real party-in-interest. He maintained that the private document executed by the defendants’
predecessors in favor of Medrano was null and void for want of consideration.  Thus, while some children affirmed
the renunciation of their deceased mothers’ rights in the lot in favor of Medrano, the other children renounced their
hereditary rights in favor of De Vera. 
 
The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing an ex parte presentation of evidence. The trial court
explained it would have allowed De Vera to present his evidence in the case had he complied with the court’s order
to file a pleading-in-intervention. Upon appeal to the CA, the appellate court agreed with De Vera.  The CA pointed
out that the trial court should have exercised its authority to order the substitution of the original defendants instead
of requiring De Vera to file a pleading-in-intervention.  This is allowed under Rule 3, Section 19 of the Rules of
Court.  Since a transferee pendente lite is a proper party to the case, the court can order his outright substitution for
the original defendants. The petitioners filed for a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the appellate
court, hence this petition.

1
 ISSUE:
         
Whether De Vera is an indispensable party who was not given an opportunity to present his evidence in the case.  

HELD:
Yes. We sustain the CA’s ruling that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in refusing to allow De Vera to
participate in the case and requiring him to file a motion to intervene. 

What the trial court should have done is to treat De Vera (as transferee pendente lite) as having been joined as a
party-defendant, and to try the case on the basis of the answer De Vera had filed and with De Vera’s
participation.  As transferee pendente lite, De Vera may be allowed to join the original defendants under Rule 3,
Section 19:
 
            SEC. 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. 
 
The above provision gives the trial court discretion to allow or disallow the substitution or joinder by the
transferee.  Discretion is permitted because, in general, the transferee’s interest is deemed by law as adequately
represented and protected by the participation of his transferors in the case.  There may be no need for the
transferee pendente lite to be substituted or joined in the case because, in legal contemplation, he is not really denied
protection as his interest is one and the same as his transferors, who are already parties to the case.
 
We are not persuaded by petitioners’ insistence that De Vera could not have participated in the case because he did
not file a motion to intervene.  The purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party in
order for him to protect his interest and for the court to settle all conflicting claims.  Intervention is allowed to avoid
multiplicity of suits more than on due process considerations.  The intervenor can choose not to participate in the
case and he will not be bound by the judgment. 
 
In this case, De Vera is not a stranger to the action but a transferee pendente lite.  As mentioned, a
transferee pendente lite is deemed joined in the pending action from the moment when the transfer of interest is
perfected. His participation in the case should have been allowed by due process considerations.