07. Carandang vs Heirs of Quirino A.

De Guzman
[G.R. 160347& November 29, 2006]

FACTS:
- Quirino De Guzman and Spouses Carandang are stockholders as well as corporate officers of Mabuhay
Broadcasting System (MBS) with equities of 54% and 46% respectively.
- The stocks of MBS increased multiple times and the Spouses Carandang subscribed to the increase
- De Guzman claims that part of the payment for these subscriptions were paif by him and thus sent a
demand letter to Spouses Carandang for the payment of the total amount of Php 336,375
- Spouses Carandang refused to pay claiming that the pre-incorporation agreement executed between
them states that the De Guzman promised to pay for the stock subscriptions of the Spouses
Carandang without cost, in consideration for Arcadio Carandang’s technical expertise, his newly
purchased equipment and his skill in repairing and upgrading communication equipment
PROCEDURE:
- De Guzman filed his complaint seeking to recover the amount together with damages and the trial
court ruled in his favor.
- Spouses Carandang appealed to the CA but CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
- Spouses Carandang appealed to the SC claiming that the RTC decision is void having been rendered
AFTER the death of Quirino De Guzman without complying with the requirement of Sec 16, Rule 3

ISSUE/S:
- Whether or not the decision of the RTC is void for non-complaince of Sec 16 Rule 3 ROC

RULING:
- NO. Unlike jurisdiction over the subject which is conferred by law and not subject to the discretion of
the parties, jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the case may be waived either expressly or
impliedly. Implied waiver comes in the form of either voluntary appearance or a failure to object.
- In the case at bar, not only do the heirs of De Guzman interpose no objection to the jurisdiction of the
court over their persons; they are actually claiming and embracing such jurisdiction. Their waver is
expressed. The Heirs of De Guzman had no objection to being bound by the decision of the RTC.
- Lack of jurisdiction over the person is a personal defense and can only be asserted by the party who
can thereby waive it by silence
- The spirit of the law protects due process of those who, though not duly notified of the proceedings,
are substantially affected by the judgment rendered therein. Such violation of due process can only be
asserted by the persons whore rights are claimed to have been violated, namely the heirs to whom the
adverse judgment is sought to be enforced.
- FURTHER, the case at bar had already been submitted for decision before the RTC (June 1998),
several months before the passing away of de Guzman in Feb 1999. Hence, no further proceedings
requiring the appearance of De Guzman’s counsel were conducted before the promulgation of the
RTC decision. Trial already ceased upon the death of De Guzman.
FALLO
WHEREFORE, decision of the CA is affirmed with modifications.
ON OTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUES:

On failure to state a cause of action because of failure to include Milagros De Guzman as an indispensible
party:
- Spouses Carandang interchanged the meaning of “real party in interest” and “indispensible party”
- Spouses De Guzman were married before the FC and their marriage settlement was governed by the
rules of CPG. In suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in interest and any one of
them may bring an action, any kind of action, for the recovery of co-owned properties. Only 1 co-
owner is an indispensible party to the case and the other co-owners cannot be considered as such. She
is neither a necessary party for a complete relief can be accorded even without her participation, since
the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners.
- The court held that Milagros De Guzman is not an indispensable party in the suit and as such, she need
not have been impleaded in said suit and failure to implead her will not result to a dismissal of the
case.