Suria v. Tomolin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Brigido M. Tomolin was the registered owner of Lot No. 6098. On July 13, 1998, Tomolin sold the lot to Spouses Carlos and Juanita Suria for P228,200.00. Following the sale, the title was transferred to Carlos Suria's name, and the lot was subsequently subdivided into several parcels, with new titles issued in the petitioners' names. Procedural History: On September 22, 2000, Tomolin filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking to annul the deed of sale and cancel the transfer certificates of title, alleging he was inveigled into signing the sale and was not paid the agreed amount. An amended complaint was filed on October 17, 2000, detailing the subdivision and issuance of derivative titles. Tomolin died on October 18, 2000. His heirs were substituted as respondents on March 7, 2001, after the petitioners' opposition was denied by the RTC. The petitioners' subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied. They then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed their petition on February 28, 2003. The Petition: The petitioners, Spouses Carlos and Juanita Suria, are seeking review of the CA's decision through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. They contend that the action to annul the deed of sale and cancel the titles did not survive Tomolin's death, and therefore, his heirs cannot prosecute the case. The respondents, the heirs of Brigido M. Tomolin, maintain that the petition lacks merit.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale and cancellation of titles survived the death of Brigido M. Tomolin. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order allowing the substitution of the late Tomolin by his heirs.
Ruling
The petition must fail. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the action survived the death of Brigido M. Tomolin: The Supreme Court reiterated the long-settled ruling that the survival of an action depends on its nature and the damage sued for. If the wrong complained of affects primarily and principally property and property rights, with injuries to the person being merely incidental, the action survives. In his complaint and amended complaint, Tomolin prayed for the annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale, reconveyance of the lot, reconveyance of the original title, and cancellation of the derivative titles issued in the petitioners' names. These reliefs clearly affect primarily and principally property and property rights. Therefore, the action survives Tomolin's death. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order allowing the substitution of the late Tomolin by his heirs: As established, the action for annulment of sale and cancellation of titles is an action that survives the death of the plaintiff because it primarily concerns property rights. Consequently, the heirs of the deceased plaintiff have the legal right to be substituted in his stead to continue the prosecution of the case. The trial court correctly allowed the substitution, and the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in upholding the trial court's order. The petitioners' opposition to the substitution lacked merit, and their subsequent motions for reconsideration were also correctly denied.
Main Doctrine
An action survives the death of a party if the wrong complained of affects primarily and principally property and property rights, with injuries to the person being merely incidental. In such cases, the heirs may be substituted for the deceased party.