You are on page 1of 1

Purita ALIPIO, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and Romeo Jaring,represented by his Atorney-in-Fact Ramon Jaring [2000] Jaring (Romeo) was the lessee of a 14.5 hec fishpond in Barito, Mabuco,Hermosa, Bataan. Lease was for 5 yrs ending on Sep. 12, 1990. June 19, 1987 til the end of the lease period, Jaring subleased the fishpondto sps Alipio and sps Manuel. Stipulated rent: P485,600.00 payable in 2installments of P300k and P185,600.00. 2nd installment due on June 30,1989. They all signed the contract. Sublessees failed to pay entire 2nd installment, leaving a balance of P50,600.00 w/c they failed to pay despite Alipios demands. Thus, he filed acase against said sublessees asking for payment of the balance or rescission of the contract should they fail to pay the balance. Defense of Purita Alipio: petitioned for the dismissal of the case invoking Rule 3, Sec. 21 of the 1964 Rules of Court, claiming that such was applicable since her husband and co-sublessee passed away prior to thefiling of this action. Said rule has been amended by Rule 3, Sec. 20, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Trial court: denied Alipios petition. Ratio: she was a party to the contract &should be independently impleaded together w/the Manuel sps. Death of her husband merely resulted in his exclusion from the case. Petitioner &Manuels ordered to pay balance + P10k attys fees and costs of suit. CA: dismissed appeal. Rule invoked is not applicable. The action for recovery of a sum of money does not survive the death of the defendant,thus the remaining defendants cannot avoid the action by claiming that such death totally extinguished their obligation. When the action is solidary,creditor may bring his action against any of the debtors obligated insolidum. Alipios liability is independent of & separate from her husbands.(Climaco vs. Siy Uy, Imperial vs. David, and Agacoili vs. Vda de Agcaoili) ISsue WON a creditor can sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in anordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeableagainst the conjugal partnership. NO. Proper remedy would be to file aclaim in the settlement of the decedents estate or if none has beencommenced, he can file a petition either for the issuance of letters of administration or for the allowance of will, depending on whether itstestate/intestate. No shortcut by lumping claim against Alipios w/thoseagainst the Manuels. 1 When the action is for recovery of money,debt or interest thereon, and thedefendant dies beforefinal judgmentin the CFI, it shall bedismissedto be prosecuted in the manner especially provided inthese rules.(rule 3 sec 21 1964 rules) 2 When the action is for the recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied and thedefendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in w/c action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment(rule 3 sec 20 1997 rules) A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. Alipios husband died before case was instituted. Thus, Rule 3, Sec. 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civ Proc is not applicable since it only applies to defendants who die during the pendency of the case. CC Art. 161 (1) provides that the obligation of the Alipios is chargeableagainst their conjugal partnership since it was contracted by the spouses for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. When petitioners spouse died, their CP was dissolved & debts chargeable against it are to be paid in the settlement of estate proceedings in accordance w/Rule 73, Sec. 2 w/cprovides that the community property will be inventoried, administered, &liquidated and debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. Calma vs.Tanedo: No complaint for collection of indebtedness chargeableto the CP can be brought against the surviving spouse. Claim must be made in the proceedings for the liquidation & settlement of the CP.Surviving spouses powers of admin ceases & is passed on to court-appointed administrator. Affirmed in Ventura vs. Militante where Court heldthat lack of liquidation proceedings does not mean that the CP continues.Creditor may apply for letters of admin in his capacity as a principal creditor. Cases invoked by CA are not applicable, being based on different set of facts. In Climaco, claim was not against the CP & it did not survive thedeath of the defendant but not as to the remaining defendant. Imperial, onthe other hand, involved spouses who were solidarily liable, thus, survivingspouse could be independently sued in an ordinary action for theenforcement of the entire obligation. Note that for marriages governed by CPG, obligations entered into by sps are chargeable vs their CP & partnership is primarily bound for their payments. Theyll be impleaded as representatives of the CP and conceptof joint/solidary liability does not apply. At best, it will not be solidary but joint