11.

Purita Alipio vs CA (Rule 73)

Facts:

Respondent Romeo Jaring was the lessee of a 14. 5 hectares fishpond located at Hermosa, Bataan
for a period of 5 years which is to end on Sept. 12, 1990. On 1987, he subleased the fishpond to
Sps. Placido and Purita Alipio and Sps. Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel. Total amount of rent is
P485,600.00 payable in 2 installments.

The first installment was duly paid but for the 2nd installment, there is a total unpaid balance of
P50,600. Despite the demand, sublesses failed to pay. Respondents sue Sps. Alipio and Manuel
for the collection of unpaid balance before the RTC Bataan, or in the alternative, for rescission of
sublease contract if failed to pay the balance.

Pet. Purita Alipio moved for MD on the ground that her husband passed away in 1988 based on
Rule3, Sec. 21 of Rules of Court that when the action is for the recovery of money and the
defendant dies before final judgment by CFI, it shall be dismissed. Such provision has been
amended by Rule3, Sec. 20 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, that when an action is for the recovery
of money arising from contract, express or implied, and defendant dies before the entry of final
judgment, it shall not be dismissed but instead, be allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment.

RTC: denied the petition on the ground that since the petitioner is a party herself to the sublease,
she could be independently impleaded together with Manuel spouses and the death of his
husband excludes his husband from the case. Manuel Spouses failed to answer and they were
declared in default.

RTC: Ordered petitioners to pay respondent the unpaid balance and attys. Fees of 10k.

Pet. Appealed to CA on the ground that RTC erred in denying MD.

CA: dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on the ground that dismissal of an action for recovery of money
when the defendant dies before the final judgment in the RTC and there are other defendants
against whom the action should be maintained. The remaining defendants cannot avoid the
action by claiming the death of one of the parties.

If husband and wife bound themselves jointly or severally, in case of his death, her liability is
independent and separate from her husband’s.

Pet. Filed an MR but was denied

ISSUE:
Whether or not a creditor may sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding
for the collection of sum of money chargeable against the conjugal partnership?
HELD:
No. Creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding for
collection of sum of money and that the proper remedy is for the creditor to file a claim in the
settlement of the estate of the decedent.

Under the law, the Alipios obligation (and also of Manuels) is one which is chargeable to against
their conjugal partnership. Under Art. 161 (1) of the CC, the conjugal partnership is liable for 3/4.

When petitioner’s husband died, their conjugal partnership was automatically dissolved and
debts chargeable against it are to be paid in the settlement of estate proceedings under Rule 73,
Sec. 2 which states:

When the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or the wife, the Community of
property shall be inventoried, administered and liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the
testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses died, the conjugal
partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either.

Where complaint is brought against the surviving spouse for the recovery of an indebtedness
chargeable against said conjugal partnership, any judgment obtained thereby is void. The proper
action should be in the form of claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings of the
deceased spouse.

Petition is granted. Manuel spouses are ordered to pay 25,300 and atty.’s fee amounting to 10k.
Complaint against the petitioner is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of claim in settlement
of estate of placido alipio in the amount of 25, 300.
12.Pablo Utulo vs Leona Garcia
Facts:
Juan Garcia Sanchez died intestate and In the proceeding before CFI tarlac, Leona de Garcia, the
surviving spouse and oppositor, was appointed as judicial administratrix. Deceased left legit
children Juan, Patrocinio and Luz. Luz Garcia married the applicant Pablo Utulo and during the
pendency for the administration of admin proceedings, she died without legit descendants and
her only forced heir is her mother and husband.

His husband file for judicial administration of the property of her deceased wife and that he be
declared as administrator. Leona de Garcia, the mother of the deceased filed an opposition on
the ground that she had a better right over the applicant.

RTC: After the required publication and trial, oppositor Leona was excepted(barred). Thereafter,
filed the record on appeal which was certified and approved.

ISSUE:
Whether or not upon judicial administration of the property left by the deceased Luz Garcia, lies
with it the consequent appointment for administrator?

HELD:

When a person dies without leaving pending obligations to be paid, his heirs, whether of age or
not, are bound to submit the property to a judicial administration and the appointment of an
administrator are superfluous and unnecessary proceedings. (Art. 657, 659, and 661 of CC)
The property belongs to the heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor had executed and
delivered to them a deed for the same before death. In the absence of debts existing against the
estate, the heirs may enter upon the administration of the said property immediately.