Purita Alipio v CA

7/25/2019 Purita Alipio v CA

1/5

Page 1of 5

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 134100 September 29, 2000

PURITA ALIPIO, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS !" ROMEO G. #ARING, repre$e!te" b% &'$ Attor!e%(I!(F)t RAMON G. #ARING,

respondents.

D E C I S I O N

MEN*O+A, J.:

he !uestion for decision in this case is "hether a creditor can sue the survivin# spouse for the collection of a debt

"hich is o"ed b$ the con%u#al partnership of #ains, or "hether such clai& &ust be filed in proceedin#s for the

settle&ent of the estate of the decedent. he trial court and the Court of 'ppeals ruled in the affir&ative. (e

reverse.

he facts are as follo"s)

Respondent Ro&eo *arin#+"as the lessee of a +.- hectare fishpond in arito, Mabuco, /er&osa, ataan. he

lease "as for a period of five $ears endin# on Septe&ber +0, +112. On *une +1, +134, he subleased the fishpond,

for the re&ainin# period of his lease, to the spouses Placido and Purita 'lipio and the spouses ienvenido and

Re&edios Manuel. he stipulated a&ount of rent "as P3-,522.22, pa$able in t"o install&ents ofP622,222.22and P+3-,522.22, "ith the second install&ent fallin# due on *une 62, +131. Each of the four sublessees si#ned the

contract.

he first install&ent "as dul$ paid, but of the second install&ent, the sublessees onl$ satisfied a portion thereof,

leavin# an unpaid balance of P-2,522.22. Despite due de&and, the sublessees failed to co&pl$ "ith their

obli#ation, so that, on October +6, +131, private respondent sued the 'lipio and Manuel spouses for the collection of

the said a&ount before the Re#ional rial Court, ranch -, Dinalupihan, ataan. In the alternative, he pra$ed for the

rescission of the sublease contract should the defendants fail to pa$ the balance.

Petitioner Purita 'lipio &oved to dis&iss the case on the #round that her husband, Placido 'lipio, had passed a"a$

on Dece&ber +, +133.0

She based her action on Rule 6, 70+ of the +15 Rules of Court "hich then provided that8"hen the action is for recover$ of &one$, debt or interest thereon, and the defendant dies before final %ud#&ent in

the Court of 9irst Instance, it shall be dis&issed to be prosecuted in the &anner especiall$ provided in these rules.8

his provision has been a&ended so that no" Rule 6, 702 of the +114 Rules of Civil Procedure provides)

(hen the action is for the recover$ of &one$ arisin# fro& contract, e:press or i&plied, and the defendant dies

before entr$ of final %ud#&ent in the court in "hich the action "as pendin# at the ti&e of such death, it shall not be

dis&issed but shall instead be allo"ed to continue until entr$ of final %ud#&ent. ' favorable %ud#&ent obtained b$

the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the &anner especiall$ provided in these Rules for prosecutin# clai&s a#ainst

the estate of a deceased person.

he trial court denied petitioner;s &otion on the #round that since petitioner "as herself a part$ to the subleasecontract, she could be independentl$ i&pleaded in the suit to#ether "ith the Manuel spouses and that the death of

her husband &erel$ resulted in his e:clusion fro& the case.6he Manuel spouses failed to file their ans"er. 9or this

reason, the$ "ere declared in default.

On 9ebruar$ 05, +11+, the lo"er court rendered %ud#&ent after trial, orderin# petitioner and the Manuel spouses to

pa$ private respondent the unpaid balance of P-2,522.22 plus attorne$;s fees in the a&ount of P+2,222.22 and the

costs of the suit.

Obligations &

Contract
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt1


2/5

Page 2of 5

Petitioner appealed to the Court of 'ppeals on the #round that the trial court erred in den$in# her &otion to dis&iss.

In its decisionrendered on *ul$ +2, +114, the appellate court dis&issed her appeal. It held)

he rule that an action for recover$ of &one$, debt or interest thereon &ust be dis&issed "hen the defendant dies

before final %ud#&ent in the re#ional trial court, does not appl$ "here there are other defendants a#ainst "ho& the

action should be &aintained. his is the teachin# of Climaco v. Siy Uy, "herein the Supre&e Court held)

. -

Petitioner filed a &otion for reconsideration, but it "as denied on *une , +113.5/ence this petition based on thefollo"in# assi#n&ent of errors)

'. /E RESPONDEN CO


3/5

Page 3of 5

'll debts and obli#ations contracted b$ the husband for the benefit of the con%u#al partnership, and those contracted

b$ the "ife, also for the sa&e purpose, in the cases "here she &a$ le#all$ bind the partnership. 3

(hen petitioner;s husband died, their con%u#al partnership "as auto&aticall$ dissolved1and debts char#eable

a#ainst it are to be paid in the settle&ent of estate proceedin#s in accordance "ith Rule 46, 70 "hich states)

Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage. F (hen the &arria#e is dissolved b$ the death of the husbandor "ife, the co&&unit$ propert$ shall be inventoried, ad&inistered, and li!uidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the

testate or intestate proceedin#s of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the con%u#al partnership shall

be li!uidated in the testate or intestate proceedin#s of either.

's held in Calma v. Taedo,+2after the death of either of the spouses, no co&plaint for the collection of

indebtedness char#eable a#ainst the con%u#al partnership can be brou#ht a#ainst the survivin# spouse. Instead, the

clai& &ust be &ade in the proceedin#s for the li!uidation and settle&ent of the con%u#al propert$. he reason for

this is that upon the death of one spouse, the po"ers of ad&inistration of the survivin# spouse ceases and is

passed to the ad&inistrator appointed b$ the court havin# %urisdiction over the settle&ent of estate

proceedin#s.++Indeed, the survivin# spouse is not even a de facto ad&inistrator such that conve$ances &ade b$

hi& of an$ propert$ belon#in# to the partnership prior to the li!uidation of the &ass of con%u#al partnership propert$is void.+0

he rulin# in Calma v. Taedo"as reaffir&ed in the recent case of Ventura v. ilitante.+6In that case, the survivin#

"ife "as sued in an a&ended co&plaint for a su& of &one$ based on an obli#ation alle#edl$ contracted b$ her and

her late husband. he defendant, "ho had earlier &oved to dis&iss the case, opposed the ad&ission of the

a&ended co&plaint on the #round that the death of her husband ter&inated their con%u#al partnership and that the

plaintiff;s clai&, "hich "as char#eable a#ainst the partnership, should be &ade in the proceedin#s for the

settle&ent of his estate. he trial court nevertheless ad&itted the co&plaint and ruled, as the Court of 'ppeals did in

this case, that since the defendant "as also a part$ to the obli#ation, the death of her husband did not preclude the

plaintiff fro& filin# an ordinar$ collection suit a#ainst her. On appeal, the Court reversed, holdin# that F

as correctl$ ar#ued b$ petitioner, the con%u#al partnership ter&inates upon the death of either spouse. . . . (here a

co&plaint is brou#ht a#ainst the survivin# spouse for the recover$ of an indebtedness char#eable a#ainst said

con%u#al GpartnershipH, an$ %ud#&ent obtained thereb$ is void. he proper action should be in the for& of a clai& to

be filed in the testate or intestate proceedin#s of the deceased spouse.

In &an$ cases as in the instant one, even after the death of one of the spouses, there is no li!uidation of the

con%u#al partnership. his does not &ean, ho"ever, that the con%u#al partnership continues. 'nd private respondent

cannot be said to have no re&ed$. da$s fro& his

death, petitioner failed to appl$ for ad&inistration or re!uest that ad&inistration be #ranted to so&e other person.+

he cases relied upon b$ the Court of 'ppeals in support of its rulin#, na&el$, Climaco v.Siy Uy+-and Imperial

Insurance, Inc. v. David,+5are based on different sets of facts. In Climaco, the defendants, Carlos Si$


4/5

Page 4of 5

9ro& the fore#oin#, it is clear that private respondent cannot &aintain the present suit a#ainst petitioner.!"#phi!Rather,

his re&ed$ is to file a clai& a#ainst the 'lipios in the proceedin# for the settle&ent of the estate of petitioner;s

husband or, if none has been co&&enced, he can file a petition either for the issuance of letters of

ad&inistration+3or for the allo"ance of "ill,+1dependin# on "hether petitioner;s husband died intestate or testate.

Private respondent cannot short?circuit this procedure b$ lu&pin# his clai& a#ainst the 'lipios "ith those a#ainst the

Manuels considerin# that, aside fro& petitioner;s lac of authorit$ to represent their con%u#al estate, the inventor$ of

the 'lipios; con%u#al propert$ is necessar$ before an$ clai& char#eable a#ainst it can be paid. Needless to sa$, suchpo"er e:clusivel$ pertains to the court havin# %urisdiction over the settle&ent of the decedent;s estate and not to

an$ other court.

Se)o!". he trial court ordered petitioner and the Manuel spouses to pa$ private respondent the unpaid balance of

the a#reed rent in the a&ount of P-2,522.22 "ithout specif$in# "hether the a&ount is to be paid b$ the& %ointl$ or

solidaril$. In connection "ith this, 'rt. +024 of the Civil Code provides)

he concurrence of t"o or &ore creditors or of t"o or &ore debtors in one and the sa&e obli#ation does not i&pl$

that each one of the for&er has a ri#ht to de&and, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire

co&pliance "ith the prestations. here is a solidar$ liabilit$ onl$ "hen the obli#ation e:pressl$ so estates, or "hen

the la" or the nature of the obli#ation re!uires solidarit$.

Indeed, if fro& the la" or the nature or the "ordin# of the obli#ation the contrar$ does not appear, an obli#ation is

presu&ed to be onl$ %oint, i.e., the debt is divided into as &an$ e!ual shares as there are debtors, each debt bein#

considered distinct fro& one another.02

Private respondent does not cite an$ provision of la" "hich provides that "hen there are t"o or &ore lessees, or in

this case, sublessees, the latter;s obli#ation to pa$ the rent is solidar$. o be sure, should the lessees or sublessees

refuse to vacate the leased propert$ after the e:piration of the lease period and despite due de&ands b$ the lessor,

the$ can be held %ointl$ and severall$ liable to pa$ for the use of the propert$. he basis of their solidar$ liabilit$ is

not the contract of lease or sublease but the fact that the$ have beco&e %oint tortfeasors.0+In the case at bar, there

is no alle#ation that the sublessees refused to vacate the fishpond after the e:piration of the ter& of the sublease.Indeed, the unpaid balance sou#ht to be collected b$ private respondent in his collection suit beca&e due on *une

62, +131, lon# before the sublease e:pired on Septe&ber +0, +112.

Neither does petitioner contend that it is the nature of lease that "hen there are &ore than t"o lessees or

sublessees their liabilit$ is solidar$. On the other hand, the pertinent portion of the contract involved in this case

reads)00

0. hat the total lease rental for the sub?leased fishpond for the entire period of three =6> $ears and t"o =0> &onths is

9O Pesos upon si#nin# this contract@ and

. One /undred Ei#ht?9ive housand Si:?/undred =P+3-,5222.22> Pesos to be paid on *une 62, +131.

Clearl$, the liabilit$ of the sublessees is &erel$ %oint. Since the obli#ation of the Manuel and 'lipio spouses is

char#eable a#ainst their respective con%u#al partnerships, the unpaid balance of P-2,522.22 should be divided into

t"o so that each couple is liable to pa$ the a&ount of P0-,622.22.

-EREFORE, the petition is R'NED. ienvenido Manuel and Re&edios Manuel are ordered to pa$ the a&ountof P

0-,622.22, the attorne$;s fees in the a&ount of P

+2,222.22 and the costs of the suit. he co&plaint a#ainst

petitioner is dis&issed "ithout pre%udice to the filin# of a clai& b$ private respondent in the proceedin#s for the

settle&ent of estate of Placido 'lipio for the collection of the share of the 'lipio spouses in the unpaid balance of the

rent in the a&ount of P

0-,622.22.

SO ORDERED.

ellosillo, =Chair&an>, Juisu&bin#, uena, and De Aeon, *r., **., concur.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_134100_2000.html#fnt22


5/5

Page 5of 5

Purita Alipio v CA

Documents

Transcript of Purita Alipio v CA