1 Baritua v CA d.
Alice did not rebut that the money used to purchase the tricycle came from
183 SCRA 565; Mar 1990
Petitioners: Jose Baritua and Edgar Bitancor
Respondents: Hon. CA, Nicolas Nacario and Victoria Ronda Nacario
Ponente: Sarmiento, J.
Doctrine: Parents of the deceased succeed only when latter dies without a legitimate
descendants
Facts:
1. Bienvenido Nacario was a driving a tricycle when he figured in an accident with JB Bus
a. JB Bus was operated by Bitancor and owned by Baritua (petitioners)
2. Bienvenido and his passenger both died as a result of the accident
a. The tricycle was also damaged
b. However, no criminal charged were instituted
3. There was an extra-judicial settlement of the matter – negotiated by the petitioners and
the bus insurer, Philippine First Insurance Company (PFICI)
a. Bienvenido’s wife, Alice received P18,500.00
b. In consideration of this, Alice executed a “Release of Claim” and an Affidavit of
Desistance
4. The “Release of Claim” provided:
a. Releasing and forever discharging petitioners from all actions, claims, and
demands, arising from the accident
5. The Affidavit of Desistance formally manifested her lack of interest in instituting any
case against the petitioners
6. 1 year an 10 months after the date of the accident – the parents of Bienvenido filed a
complaint for damages against petitioners
a. Claiming that petitioners had promised them indemnification for the death of
their son
i. Funeral expenses
ii. Damage to the tricycle – since the money used to purchase the
tricycle was from them and merely loaned to their son
b. That petitioner reneged on their promises and went to settle with the long-
estranged wife of their son instead
c. Basically, the parents were claiming that they were the proper heirs and
should have received the settlement money
7. TC dismissed the complaint
a. Held that payment of petitioners to Alice was proper
b. Because she (& son) was the preferred heirs and successors-in-interest of the
deceased Bienvenido
c. Parents were not the proper heirs since Bienvenido had a wife and a son
d. Payment to the wife and son = extinguished the claims against the petitioners
8. The parents appealed to the CA – reversed the TC
a. The release made by Alice did not discharge the liability of the petitioners
b. Because this was done in her own capacity, not as “heirs, representatives,
successors, and assignes”
c. No valid waiver of the damages since she was not the one who suffered the
damages arising from the death of Bienvenido
the parents
e. Lastly, the funeral expenses were paid by the parents
Issue: Whether settlement with Alice extinguished the claims against petitioners? (Yes)
Held:
Yes. Settlement made by petitioner to Alice (& son) was proper and extinguished all claims
against the petitioners
 Payment is a mode of extinguishing obligations {Art 1231 of NCC}
 No denying that petitioners had already paid their obligation
o Question is if payment to Alice was proper
 To extinguish an obligation via payment, payment shall be made to the person in whose
favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person
authorized to receive payment
o No question that Alice (& son) are the successors in interest referred to by the
law
o They are also persons authorized to receive payment
Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;
2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to their
legitimate children and decendants;
3. The widow or widower;
4. Acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction;
5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2.
Neither do they exclude one another. (Emphasis ours.)
Article 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his parents
and ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of collateral relatives.
So, it should be clear that the parents of the deceased succeed only when latter dies without
a legitimate descendants
 The surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs
 In this case, Bienvenido was married to Alicia and they had a child together
o Alicia and son are the successors-in-interest
o Not the parents
 It was therefore correct to pay the settlement to Alicia and son – not to the parents
o Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving
spouse as an heir
Parents cannot claim from petitioners because the expenses they claimed are but money
claims against the state of their deceased son.
Petitioners won.