CARDENAS v.

HEIRS OF AGUILAR In this case, Melba continued to appear and

G.R. No. 191079 l March 02, 2016
Third Division l Justice Perez
Digest by Karen Joy R. Masapol
FACTS:
participated in the proceedings of the case and
continued the defense of her deceased parents.
Moreover, the jurisdiction priorly acquired by the
Regional Trial Court achieved the purpose of a formal
substitution.

Elinaida Alcantara obtained a loan from Maximo and

Simplicia Aguilar. This was secured by an agreement
of a sale with the right to repurchase. When Alcantara
failed to repurchase the property, Melba A. Clavo de
Comer, daughter of Spouses Aguilar, granted the
extension period.

Subsequently, Joel Cardenas, son of Alcantara,

sought to redeem the property but the Spouses Aguilar
refused. This prompted Alcantara to file a complaint for
against Spouses Aguilar and Melba A. Clavo de
Comer and her husband.

When Alcantara died, she was substituted by

Cardenas who filed an amended complaint. Prior to
the filing of the amended complaint, Maximo Aguilar
died and his counsel filed a Notice of Death informing
the court of his death and that he was substituted by
his heirs, Simplicia Aguilar and Melba A. Clavo de
Comer. However, a Notice of Death was not filed when
Simplicia Aguilar died.

A judgment was rendered in favor of Alcantara. To the

court’s surprise, Cardenas opposed the execution of
the said judgment claiming that there was no formal
substitution as mandated by Section 16, Rule 3 of the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

In her defense, Melba claims that a Notice of Death

was not necessary upon the death of Simplicia since
Melba A. Clavo de Comer was already part of the
action after she was named as co-defendant upon the
filing of the Amended Complaint.

ISSUE:

Is the formal substitution of Melba still necessary?

RULING: NO

The purpose of substitution is to apprise the heir or the

substitute that he is being brought to the jurisdiction of
the court in lieu of the deceased party by operation of
law.

The said purpose was not defeated even if no proper

substitution of party was made because Melba A.
Clavo de Comer, the heir of the deceased Simplicia P.
Aguilar, was already impleaded by Cardenas as a
party-defendant to Civil Case No. LP-02-0300 when he
filed his Amended Complaint.

The Court also held that if there is compliance with the

substantive aspect even without the compliance with
the formal aspect, it is still considered as substantial
compliance with the due process.