Baritua vs.

Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 82233, March 22, 1990

Facts:

On November 7, 1979, the tricycle drove by Bienvenido Nacario along the national highway in Camarines Sur
figured in an accident with JB Bus No. 80 caused by petitioner Edgar Bitancor and owned and operated by
petitioner Jose Baritua. Bienvenido and his passenger died due to that accident, and the tricycle was
damaged.

Due to the extrajudicial settlement of the matter negotiated by the petitioners and the bus insurer, Nacario's
widow received P18,500.00. In consideration of the amount she received, The widow executed a "Release of
Claim" and an affidavit of desistance in favor of the petitioners and PFICI. They are released and forever
discharged from all actions, claims, and demands arising from the accident, which resulted in her husband's
death and the damage to the tricycle which the deceased was then driving.

After more than a year, the private respondents, who are the parents of the deceased Nacario, filed a
complaint against the petitioners to be repaid for the death of their son, for the funeral expenses incurred by
reason thereof, and for the damage for the tricycle which they only loaned to the victim. The petitioners,
however, undertake their promise; they instead negotiated and settled their obligations. The Nacario spouses
prayed that the defendants, petitioners herein, be ordered to repay them for the death of their son
Bienvenido, for the broken tricycle, for compensatory and exemplary damages, for attorney's fees, and moral
damages.

The court a quo dismissed the complaint, but the CA ruled that the release performed by Alicia did not
release the petitioners' liability because she did not suffer from these damages arising from the death of the
respondents' son. The appellate court ordered the petitioners to pay the private respondents. A
reconsideration of the petitioner's motion was denied.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent court erred in holding that the petitioners are still liable to pay the
private respondents despite the agreement of extrajudicial settlement between the petitioners and also the
victim's compulsory heirs.

Ruling:

The petition is meritorious. Alicia is entitled to the payment for damages. As stated in Art 1240.
Payment shall be made in whose favor the obligation has been constituted. That goes to say that Alicia and
her son are the successors in the claim, referred to as the persons authorized to receive payment.
The petitioners acted correctly to settle their obligation with Alicia as she is the widow of Bienvenido and the
guardian of their lone child. The private respondents may have loaned to Bienvenido, but price and expenses
are but money claims. It is not the liabilities of the petitioners who the agreement of the extrajudicial
settlement had released.
Thus the petition is denied.