Nicanor Nacar vs Judge Claudio Nistal, Ildefonso Japitana, and Antonio Doloricon (G.

R
No. L-33006, December 8, 1982)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: “Claims against estate should be settled in probate proceedings”

FACTS: Sometime in 1968, Nicanor Nacar’s stepfather, Isabelo Nacar incurred indebtedness
against Ildefonso Japitana amounting to P2, 791.00. Despite repeated demands by Japitana,
Isabelo Nacar was not able to pay, which prompting Japitana to file a case against Isabelo Nacar
for the collection of money. In 1970 Isabelo died which moved the Japitana to file again a
complaint, this time entitled “Claim Against The Estate of the Late Isabelo Nacar”

Nicanor Nistal filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary
injunction to annul an order of the respondent Judge Nistal directing the attachment of (7)
carabaos, to effect the return of four (4) carabaos seized under the questioned order.

Private respondent Ildefonso Japitana filed the complaint in Civil Case 65 which such
Respondent Nistal ordered the return of the four carabaos. In this complaint includes an
allegation “that defendant are about to remove and dispose the seven (7) carabaos with intent to
defraud the plaintiff therein” in which moved Judge Nistal to order such attachment of the seven
carabaos in the possession of Nicanor Nistal, to wit only four can be attached since three of the
carabaos where slaughtered for the burial of his stepfather Isabelo Nacar.

Nacar filed a motion to dismiss to order the return of the carabaos. He also raised the issue of
lack of jurisdiction and absence of cause of action and that such indebtedness was incurred by his
late stepfather, not him.

Private Respondent Japitana filed an opposition to this motion while the other Respondent
Antonio Doloricon filed a complaint in intervention asserting that he was the owner of the
attached carabaos and that the certificate of ownership of large cattle were in his name.

Judge Nistal denied such motion to dismiss.

ISSUE: Whether or not a complaint against an heir of a decedent, who incurred the
indebtedness, is the correct action for the collection of money.

HELD/RULING: The Supreme Court held that no, a complaint for the collection of money is
not correct and thus Ildefonso Japitana has no cause of action against petitioner Nicanor Nacar.

According to Mathay vs Consolidated Bank, for cause of action to arise the following elements
should be present: (1) the existence of a legal right in the plaintiff, (2) a correlative duty in the
defendant, and (3) an act or omission violating such right.

Indeed respondent Japitana may have a legal right against Nicanor Nacar, Nacar has no legal
duty to pay the debt for the reason that there is nothing in the complaint to show that he incurred
the debt or had anything to do with the creation of the liability. As far as the debt is concerned,
there is no allegation showing that the petitioner acted in violation of Japitana’s rights with
consequential injury or damage to the latter as would create a cause of action.

The carabaos, if really owned by Isabelo Nacar, pertained to his estate upon his death. The claim
of the private respondent may only be satisfied by a voluntary act on the part of the heirs of
Isabelo Nacar, or pursued in the appropriate settlement proceedings. A municipal court may not
entertain such proceeding, it no being vested with probate proceeding.