Alipio vs CA

Facts: Romeo was the lessee of a 14.5 hec fishpond in Barito, Mabuco, Hermosa,
Bataan. The lease was for 5 yrs ending on Sep. 12, 1990. June 19, 1987 til the end of the
lease period, Jaring subleased the fishpond to spouses Alipio and spouses Manuel.
Stipulated rent: P485,600.00 payable in 2 installments of P300k and P185,600.00. 2 nd
installment due on June 30, 1989. They all signed the contract. Sub lessees failed to pay
entire 2nd installment, leaving a balance of P50,600.00 w/c they failed to pay despite
Alipios demands. Thus, he filed a case against said sub lessees asking for payment of
the balance or rescission of the contract should they fail to pay the balance. Defense of
Purita Alipio: petitioned for the dismissal of the case invoking Rule 3, Sec. 21 of the 1964
Rules of Court1, claiming that such was applicable since her husband and co-sub lessee
passed away prior to the filing of this action. Said rule has been amended by Rule 3, Sec.
20, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Trial court: denied Alipios petition. Ratio: she was a
party to the contract & should be independently impleaded together w/the Manuel
spouses. Death of her husband merely resulted in his exclusion from the case. Petitioner
& Manuels ordered to pay balance + P10k attys fees and costs of suit.

Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The action for recovery of a sum of money does
not survive the death of the defendant, thus the remaining defendants cannot avoid the
action by claiming that such death totally extinguished their obligation. When the action
is solidary, creditor may bring his action against any of the debtors obligated in solidum.
Alipios liability is independent of & separate from her husbands.

Issue:
1. WON a creditor can sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary
proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against the
conjugal partnership.
2. WON a creditor can sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary
proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against the
conjugal partnership.

Held:
1. Proper remedy would be to file a claim in the settlement of the decedents
estate or if none has been commenced, he can file a petition either for the
issuance of letters of administration or for the allowance of will, depending on
whether its testate/intestate. No shortcut by lumping claim against Alipios
w/those against the Manuels.

Alipios husband died before case was instituted. Thus, Rule 3, Sec. 20 of the
1997 Rules of Civ Proc is not applicable since it only applies to defendants who
die during the pendency of the case. CC Art. 161 (1) provides that the obligation
 of the Alipios is chargeable against their conjugal partnership since it was
contracted by the spouses for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. When
petitioners spouse died, their CP was dissolved & debts chargeable against it are
to be paid in the settlement of estate proceedings in accordance with Rule 73,
Sec. 2 which provides that the community property will be inventoried,
administered, & liquidated and debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate
proceedings of the deceased spouse.

2. Civil Code Art. 1207: Concurrence of 2 or more creditors or 2 or more debtors in

one & the same obligation does not imply a solidary liability.

Solidary liability only arises when the obligation expressly so states or when the
law or nature of the obligation requires solidarity. Otherwise, its presumed to
be joint, w/the debt divided into as many equal shares as there are debtors, each
debt distinct from one another. Should lessees/sub lessees refuse to vacate
leased property after expiration of the leased period despite due demands, they
can be held solidarily liable to pay for the use of the property being joint
tortfeasors. However, theres no allegation that sub lessees refused to vacate
the fishpond after the expiration of the term. Petitioner does not contend that
nature of the lease w/more than 2 sub lessees result into a solidary liability.
Rather, contract provides that rent will be paid to the sub-lessor by the sub-
lessees, clearly indicating that liability is merely joint. Since obligation of both
couples is chargeable against their respective CPs, balance of P50,600.00 should
be divided into 2 so that each couple is liable to pay P25,300.00.