Heirs of Sanchez v. Abrantes

In 2002, Horacio Abrantes sued the heirs of Bartolome J. Sanchez in RTC Branch 5, Butuan City, to nullify a deed of confirmation of absolute sale and reconvey a parcel of land (First Complaint). Horacio died on April 27, 2003. His counsel, Atty. Battad, then moved to dismiss because Horacio's heirs were supposedly "no longer interested" in the case. By order dated August 13, 2004, the RTC dismissed it; the order became final on September 6, 2004. More than four years after Horacio's death, his heirs, represented by the same counsel, filed a second complaint over the same property against the same defendants in RTC Branch 3. That court dismissed it on res judicata, treating the first dismissal as one for failure to prosecute under Section 3, Rule 17. The Court of Appeals affirmed on a different ground: it held the first dismissal void, since counsel's authority ended with his client's death and no substitution under Section 16, Rule 3 was made. It therefore treated the first case as still pending, which barred the second under litis pendentia. The Sanchez heirs appealed under Rule 45.

1. 1Whether the CA erred in ruling that the First Dismissal Order was a nullity.
2. 2Whether the Second Complaint was barred by litis pendentia or by res judicata.

Neither litis pendentia nor res judicata applies, and the second case was reinstated. Substitution of heirs upon a party's death "is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process." Only the heirs whose rights were violated may invoke that violation, and it is personal to them. Here the heirs never assailed the first dismissal; instead they retained the same counsel to file the second complaint, which was "tantamount to an implied ratification" of his acts. The first dismissal was therefore valid and final. Litis pendentia (Section 1(e), Rule 16) "presupposes that two similar actions are simultaneously pending," so with no case pending, it did not apply. Nor was the first dismissal an adjudication on the merits under Section 3, Rule 17. That provision covers failure to appear, failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, or failure to comply with the rules or a court order. This dismissal was sought by the plaintiff's own counsel on hearsay grounds, with no finding of lack of diligence. It was a dismissal at the plaintiff's instance and is without prejudice under Section 2, Rule 17, which declares such dismissals without prejudice "Unless otherwise specified in the order." The petition was denied. The CA decision and resolution were set aside, Civil Case No. 5806 was reinstated, and the case was remanded to RTC Branch 3 for continuation of proceedings.