Berot v. Siapno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Rodolfo and Lilia Berot, along with Macaria Berot, obtained a loan of P250,000.00 from Felipe C. Siapno, with a stipulated interest of 2% per annum, payable within one year. To secure this loan, Macaria, Rodolfo, and Lilia mortgaged a portion of a parcel of land registered in the names of Macaria and her deceased husband, Pedro Berot. Macaria Berot passed away on June 23, 2003. Due to the mortgagors' default in payment, Siapno initiated a foreclosure of mortgage action. Procedural History: Felipe C. Siapno filed a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage against the mortgagors in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City. Initially impleading Macaria Berot, the complaint was later amended to substitute her estate, represented by Rodolfo A. Berot, as a defendant, alongside Rodolfo and Lilia Berot. The RTC rendered a decision allowing the foreclosure. The Berot spouses appealed, raising several issues, including the improper substitution of Macaria's estate and the validity of the mortgage. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision with modification, deleting the awards for exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The CA acknowledged that a decedent's estate lacks legal personality but found that the petitioners waived this objection by their active participation in the proceedings. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. The Petition: The petitioners, Spouses Rodolfo and Lilia Berot, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. They assail the CA's decision, primarily arguing that the intestate estate of Macaria Berot could not be a proper party, even by waiver, and that their obligation was joint, not solidary. The core of their argument centers on the procedural propriety of impleading a deceased person's estate and the nature of their loan obligation. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioners had waived their objection to the jurisdiction over the estate and whether the obligation was joint or solidary.
Issue(s)
Whether the intestate estate of Macaria Berot could be a proper party by waiver, expressly or impliedly, by voluntary appearance. Whether the obligation is joint or solidary.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, upholding the foreclosure of the mortgage, but modified the ruling to declare the obligation of the petitioners and the estate of Macaria Berot as joint in nature.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substitution and jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that a deceased person has no legal personality and cannot sue or be sued. However, it found that the petitioners, by their voluntary appearance and participation in the proceedings without timely objection, impliedly waived any objection to the trial court's jurisdiction over the person of the estate of Macaria Berot. The Court cited Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, stating that defenses and objections not pleaded are deemed waived. The Court emphasized that the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person is waivable and must be raised seasonably. The continuous participation of petitioner Rodolfo Berot, as a compulsory heir and co-defendant, in the hearings, including the hearing for the amended complaint, without objection, constituted a waiver. Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily appear and participate in the proceedings, as this constitutes substantial compliance with due process requirements. On the nature of the obligation: The Court ruled that the obligation is joint, not solidary. It cited Article 1207 of the Civil Code, which presumes obligations to be joint in the absence of express stipulation for solidarity. The Court found no express statement in the real estate mortgage indicating that the debtors intended to make their obligation solidary. The testimony of Rodolfo Berot only established the existence of the loan and the mortgage, making him and his mother liable. The Court held that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging solidarity, and in this case, the respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the obligation was solidary. Therefore, the presumption of a joint obligation applies.
Main Doctrine
A party's voluntary appearance and participation in proceedings, without timely objection to the court's jurisdiction over the person, constitutes a waiver of such defense, even if the original party impleaded was deceased and substituted by their estate.