NCC 42: Civil Personality is extinguished by death.

The effect of death upon the rights and

obligations of the deceased is determined by law, by contract and by will

CA 146, Section 15: With the exception of those enumerated in the preceding section, no public
service shall operate in the Philippines without possessing a valid and subsisting certificate from
the Public Service Commission known as "certificate of public convenience," or "certificate of
public convenience and necessity," as the case may be, to the effect that the operation of said
service and the authorization to do business will promote the public interests in a proper and
suitable manner.

Relevance of the case: The estate of a deceased is a person that may continue the personality of
the deceased even after death, for the purpose of settling debts. In this case, declaring the estate
as person is necessary to avoid the injustice of subjecting his estate, creditors and heirs, solely by
reason of his death to the loss of the investment amounting to P35,000, which he has already
made in the ice plant.

FACTS:
> May 21, 1946: The Public Service Commission issued a certificate of public convenience of
Pedro Pio Fragante, deceased, for an Ice Plant through its special or juridical administrator. The
commission held that the application meets the requirements for a certificate of public
convenience: the ice plant promotes public interest in a proper and suitable manner; Pedro O.
Frangante was a Filipino Citizen at the time of his death; and that his instate estate is financially
capable in maintaining the proposed ice plant.
> Angel Limjoco, the petitioner, claims that the granting of certificate applied to the estate is a
contravention of law.

ISSUE: Is the estate of Pedro Fragante a juridical person?

RULING:
YES.
> If Fragante had lived, he would have obtained the certificate. The situation has not changed
except for his death, and the economic ability of his estate to appropriately adequately operate
and maintain the service of an ice plant was the same that it received from the decedent himself.
> The term "person" includes artificial persons. Among these artificial persons figure estates of
deceased persons. Hence, it was held that within the framework of the Constitution, the estate of
Pedro O. Fragante should be considered an artificial or juridical person for the purposes of the
settlement and distribution of his estate which, of course, include the exercise during the judicial
administration thereof of those rights and the fulfillment of those obligations of which survived
after his death. One of those rights was the one involved in his pending application before the
Public Service Commission in the instant case, consisting on the prosecution of said application
to its final conclusion.
> If the estate of Pedro O. Fragante will not be considered as a person, then an injustice would
ensue.

Additional Notes:
> One of the issue raised was the requirement of Filipino citizenship, and the petitioner is
questioning if this is met by the estate if it would be considered a person. The SC ruled that there
is no perceived valid reason not to extend the citizenship of Pedro Fragante to his estate, as well.