This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-08-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It bears reiterating that under Article 752 of the Civil Code, the donation is inofficoius if it exceeds this limitation - no person may give or receive, by way of donation, more than he may give or receive by will. In Imperial vs. Court of Appeals,[6] we held that inofficiousness may arise only upon the death of the donor as the value of donation may then be contrasted with the net value of the estate of the donor deceased. | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, no formal substitution of the parties was effected within thirty days from date of death of Bertuldo, as required by Section 16, Rule 3[53] of the Rules of Court. Needless to stress, the purpose behind the rule on substitution is the protection of the right of every party to due process. It is to ensure that the deceased party would continue to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate.[54] Non-compliance with the rule on substitution would render the proceedings and judgment of the trial court infirm because the court acquires no jurisdiction over the persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs on whom the trial and the judgment would be binding.[55] Thus, proper substitution of heirs must be effected for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over their persons and to obviate any future claim by any heir that he was not apprised of the litigation against Bertuldo or that he did not authorize Atty. Petalcorin to represent him. | |||||