REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II – ATTY. RAMON S.

ESGUERRA

Heirs of Gabatan vs. CA AUTHOR: Espinola, John Maverick G.

[G.R. No. 150206; March 13, 2009] NOTES:
TOPIC: Extent of Jurisdiction of Probate Court
PONENTE: Leonardo – De Castro, J
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Under the Rules of Court, all money claims against the decedent arising from contracts MUST be filed within the
limited time in the notice, otherwise they are barred forever. Except they may be set forth as counterclaims in an action
the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants. The rule is mandatory, this is for the protection of the
estate. The executor or admin must be informed of the claims against it, thus enabling him to examine each claim and
determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed.

FACTS:
 Numeriano Bautista is the husband and father of the plaintiffs, respectively. He was the passenger of the jeepney
owned and operated by Rosendo de Guzman, deceased husband and father of the defendants-appellants in the
transportation business. Eugenio Torres was the driver of the jeepney.
 While the jeepney was driving along Taft, IN A NEGLIGENT AND RECKLESS manner, it got into to an
accident wherein the jeep turned turtle. This caused the death of the passenger, Bautista.
 Eugenio was accused and convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. Sentenced to serve 4 months and 1
day Aresto Mayor and to indemnify the heirs. However, it remains unsatisfied.
 In 1952, the owner of the jeepney, de Guzman, died.
 In 1952, the heirs of Bautista filed a complaint against the heirs of the owner of the jeepney, the defendants herein.
They alleged that they demanded from de Guzman and his heirs the payment of the P3,000 subsidiary liability,
actual and moral damages.
 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on no jurisdiction and no cause of action. Maintained that the suit was
for a money claim against a debtor who was already dead and therefore should be filed in the intestate or testate
proceedings or initiate the same.
 In 1953, RTC – dismissed the case – became final
 In 1954, the petitioners filed another complaint with same allegations plus alleging that de Guzman died in June
1952 and intestate proceedings were filed with the same court which resulted to a project of partition approved by
the court.
 The defendant same grounds, and res judicata
 RTC denied MTD

ISSUE(S): W/N the petitioners can still claim the damages and subsidiary liability

HELD: No.

RATIO:
 Under the Rules of Court, all money claims against the decedent arising from contracts MUST be filed within
the limited time in the notice, otherwise they are barred forever. Except they may be set forth as counterclaims
in an action the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants.
 The rule is mandatory, this is for the protection of the estate. The executor or admin must be informed of the
claims against it, thus enabling him to examine each claim and determine whether it is a proper one which
should be allowed.
 Court said that after the dismissal of the first case, they should have presented their claim in the intestate
proceedings. They did not do so.
 The liability of de Guzman arose from the breach of his obligations under the contract of carriage between him
and the passenger, Bautista. The result is a money claim which is covered by the Rule and must be presented in
the intestate proceedings.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II – ATTY. RAMON S. ESGUERRA