Lapuz-Sy vs EufemioLapuz-Sy vs. Eufemio43 SCRA 177FACTS:Carmen Lapuz-Sy fled a petition for legal separation against Eufemio Eufemio on August 1953.!ey "ere married #ivilly on Septem$er %1& 193' and #anoni#ally after nine days.!ey !ad lived toget!er as !us$and and "ife #ontinuously "it!out any #!ildren until 19'3 "!en !er !us$and a$andoned !er. !ey a#(uired properties during t!eir marriage.)etitioner t!en dis#overed t!at !er !us$and #o!a$ited "it! a C!inese "oman named *o +io, on or a$out 19'9.S!e prayed for t!e issuan#e of a de#ree of legal separation& "!i#! amongot!ers& "ould order t!at t!e defendant Eufemio s!ould $e deprived of !is s!are of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip profts. Eufemio #ounter#laimed for t!e de#laration of nullity of !is marriage "it! Lapuz-Sy on t!e ground of !is prior and su$sisting marriage "it! *o +io,.rial pro#eeded and t!e parties addu#ed t!eir respe#tive eviden#e.+o"ever& $efore t!e trial #ould $e #ompleted& respondent already s#!eduled to present surre$uttal eviden#e& petitioner died in a ve!i#ular a##ident on .ay 19/9.+er #ounsel duly notifed t!e #ourt of !er deat!.Eufemio moved to dismiss t!e petition for legal separation on 0une 19/9 on t!e grounds t!at t!e said petition "as fled $eyond t!e one-year period provided in Arti#le 11% of t!e Civil Code and t!at t!e deat! of Carmen a$ated t!e a#tion for legal separation.)etitioner2s #ounsel moved to su$stitute t!e de#eased Carmen $y !er fat!er& .a#ario Lapuz. ISSUE: 3!et!er t!e deat! of t!e plainti4& $efore fnal de#ree in an a#tion for legal separation& a$ate t!e a#tion and "ill it also apply if t!e a#tion involved property rig!ts.HELD:Ana#tionforlegal separationisa$ated$yt!edeat!oft!eplainti4& evenifproperty rig!ts are involved. !ese rig!ts are mere e4e#ts of de#ree ofseparation& t!eir sour#e $eing t!e de#ree itself5 "it!out t!e de#ree su#! rig!tsdo not #ome into e6isten#e& so t!at $efore t!e fnality of a de#ree& t!ese #laimsare merely rig!ts in e6pe#tation. 7f deat! supervenes during t!e penden#y of t!ea#tion& node#ree#an$efort!#oming& deat!produ#ingamoreradi#al anddefnitive separation5 and t!e e6pe#ted #onse(uential rig!ts and #laims "ouldne#essarily remain un$orn.!e petition ofEufemio for de#laration of nullity is moot and a#ademi# and t!ere #ould $e no furt!er interest in #ontinuing t!e same after !er demise& t!at automati#ally dissolved t!e (uestioned union.Any property rig!ts a#(uired $y eit!er party as a result of Arti#le 1'' of t!e Civil Code of t!e )!ilippines / #ould $e resolved and determined in a proper a#tion for partition $y eit!er t!e appellee or $y t!e !eirs of t!e appellant.