EMILIO EMNACE vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, ESTATE OF

VICENTE TABANAO
G.R. No. 126334 | November 23, 2001

Facts: Emilio Emnace, Vicente Tabanao and Jacinto Divinagracia were partners in a business known as Ma. Nelma
Fishing Industry. Divinagracia withdrew from this partnership and as a result, Emilio Emnace and Vicente Tabano
decided to altogether dissolve their partnership and execute an agreement of partition and distribution of the
partnership properties among them. However, Emilio failed to deliver the shares of Tabanao from the partnership
even after Tabanao’s death.

Tabanao' s heirs now, filed against petitioner an action for accounting, payment of shares, division of assets and
damages.

Emilio’s Contention: The Salvacion Tabanao, the surviving spouse of Vicente Tabanao, has no legal capacity to sue
since she was never appointed as administratrix or executrix of his estate and the court has no jurisdiction over a
parcel of land which is outside the court’s territory.

Issue #1: Whether or not Salvacion Tabanao, the Surviving Spouse has capacity to sue. YES, as successors of Vicente
Tabanao, the surviving spouse as well as her children are complainants in their own right.

Ruling: A prior settlement of the estate, or even the appointment of Salvacion Tabanao as executrix or administratrix,
is not necessary for any of the heirs to acquire legal capacity to sue. As successors who stepped into the shoes of their
decedent upon his death, they can commence any action originally pertaining to the decedent. From the moment of
his death, his rights as a partner and to demand fulfillment of Emilio’s obligations as outlined in their dissolution
agreement were transmitted to the heirs. They, therefore, had the capacity to sue and seek the court's intervention to
compel Emilio to fulfill his obligations.

Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had against the partnership and Emilio were transmitted to the heirs of
Tabanao by operation of law, more particularly by succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the
property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted. Moreover,
the heirs became owners of their respective hereditary shares from the moment Vicente Tabanao died.

Issue #2: Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the subject parcel of land. YES, the action is against Emilio
and not against the land itself, therefore, it is action in personam.

Ruling: The records indubitably show that the heirs of Tabanao are asking that the assets of the partnership be
accounted for, sold and distributed according to the agreement of the partners. The fact that two of the assets of the
partnership are parcels of land does not materially change the nature of the action. It is an action in
personam  because it is an action against a person, namely, Emilio, on the basis of his personal liability. It is not an
action in rem  where the action is against the thing itself instead of against the person. Furthermore, there is no
showing that the parcels of land involved in this case are being disputed. In fact, it is only incidental that part of the
assets of the partnership under liquidation happen to be parcels of land.