"Xxx.
Respondent Court of Appeals also correctly ruled that ejectment, being an action involving recovery of real property, is a real action which as such, is not extinguished by the defendant's death.
. . . The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained affects primarily and principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights of property affected being incidental.12
There is no dispute that an ejectment case survives the death of a party, which death did not extinguish the deceased's civil personality.13 More significantly, a judgment in an ejectment case is conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action.14 Thus, we have held that:
. . . In such a case and considering that the supervening death of appellant did not extinguish her civil personality, the appellate court was well within its jurisdiction to proceed as it did with the case. There is no showing that the appellate court's proceedings in the case were tainted with irregularities.
It appears that petitioners are heirs of Adela Salindon. In fact, it was because of this relationship that the petitioners were able to transfer the title of Adela Salindon over the subject lot to their names. . . . Considering all this, the appellate decision is binding and enforceable against the petitioners as successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action (Section 49 [b] Rule 39, Rules of Court). Furthermore, . . . judgment in an ejectment case may be enforced not only against defendants therein but also against the members of their family, their relatives, or privies who derive their right of possession from the defendants (Ariem v. De los Angeles, 49 SCRA 343). Under the circumstances of this case, the same rule should apply to the successors-in-interest . . . .15
Xxx."
ABIANA C. VDA. DE SALAZAR, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PRIMITIVO NEPOMUCENO and EMERENCIANA NEPOMUCENO, Respondents. G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995.
