G.R. No.

L-33006 December 8, 1982

NICANOR NACAR, petitioner,

vs.
CLAUDIO A. NISTAL, JAPITANA, et al.

Facts:

Nicanor Nacar filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary injunction
to annul an order of the respondent judge of the municipal court directing the attachment of seven
(7) carabaos, to effect the return of four (4) carabaos seized under the questioned order, and to stop
the respondent judge from further proceeding in Civil Case No. 65.

Respondent Ildefonso Japitana filed the complaint in Civil Case No. 65 and entitled it "Claim Against
the Estate of the Late Isabelo Nacar With Preliminary Attachment. On the basis of this complaint are
the following:

That at various dates since the year 1968, the defendant have incurred indebtedness
to the plaintiff in the total sum of P2,791.00, which said amount had long been
overdue despite repeated demands;

That the defendant Isabelo Nacar died last April, 1970 leaving among other things
personal property consisting seven (7) heads of carabaos now in the possession of
the defendant Nicanor Nacar;

That plaintiff herein file a claim against the estate of the late Isabelo Nacar to recover
the aforementioned sum;

That defendant are about to remove and dispose the above mentioned property with
intent to defraud plaintiff herein;

The respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss prompting Mr. Nacar to come to the Supreme
Court.

In his motion to dismiss, the petitioner raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction and absence of a cause
of action. Mr. Nacar averred that the indebtedness mentioned in the complaint was alleged to have
been incurred by the late Isabelo Nacar and not by Nicanor Nacar. The petitioner also stated that a
municipal court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action involving a claim filed against the estate of a
deceased person.

ISSUE: WON private respondent Japitana has a cause of action against Petitioner Nicar.

Held: No. Indeed, although respondent Japitana may have a legal right to recover an indebtedness
due him, petitioner Nicanor Nacar has no correlative legal duty to pay the debt for the simple 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 or showing that the petitioner had
acted in violation of Mr. Japitana's rights with consequential injury or damage to the latter as would create a cause of
action against the former.
It is also patent from the complaint that respondent Japitana filed the case against petitioner Nacar
to recover seven (7) heads of carabaos allegedly belonging to Isabelo Nacar which Japitana wanted
to recover from the possession of the petitioner to answer for the outstanding debt of the late Isabelo
Nacar. This matter, however, is only ancillary to the main action. The ancillary matter does not cure
a fatal defect in the complaint for the main action is for the recovery of an outstanding debt of the
late lsabelo Nacar due respondent Japitana, a cause of action about which petitioner Nacar has
nothing to do.

It was stated in a Concurrent Opinion that:

The claim of private respondents, being one arising from a contract, may be pursued only by filing
the same in the administration proceedings that may be taken to settle the estate of the deceased
Isabelo Nacar. If such a proceeding is instituted and the subject claim is not filed therein within the
period prescribed, the same shall be deemed "barred forever."

It would seem that the main purpose of the private respondents in filing Civil Case No. 65 was to attach
the seven carabaos owned by Isabelo Nacar. A case had to be filed in order to justify the issuance of a
writ of attachment, unfortunately, said remedy may not be allowed. The carabaos, if really owned by
Isabelo Nacar, pertained to his estate upon his death. The claim of the private respondents 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 a proceeding, it not being vested, under
the law then in force, with probate jurisdiction.