G.R. No. L-55702. January 7, 1987.
JOSEPHINE CRUZ MALOLOS represented by her HEIRS EMMANUEL, MARIA MARINELA and MARIA MARJORIE, all surnamed MALOLOS, petitioners, vs. ASIA PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION and HONORABLE JOSE P. ALEJANDRO, Presiding Judge of Branch XXVI of the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Asia Pacific Finance Corporation (APCOR) filed a complaint for sum of money with preliminary attachment against E. Francisco Liners, Co., Inc., Elias A. Francisco, and petitioner Josephine Cruz Malolos as the drawer of a dishonored check. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment, and a levy was annotated on Malolos’s titled property. During the pendency of the case, petitioner Josephine Cruz Malolos died. Her heirs filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint against her pursuant to Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which provides that a money claim against a defendant does not survive upon the defendant’s death and must be dismissed to be presented as a claim in estate proceedings.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. It ruled that the case fell under an exception to the general rule of non-survival because a writ of attachment had already been levied on the defendant’s property. The heirs then filed this special civil action for certiorari and mandamus to annul the trial court’s resolution and to compel the dismissal of the case against the deceased.

ISSUE

Whether the levy of a writ of preliminary attachment on a defendant’s property constitutes an exception to the general rule under Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, thereby allowing a money claim to survive against the defendant’s heirs instead of being dismissed for presentation in estate proceedings.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the trial court’s resolution, and ordered the dismissal of the civil case against the deceased petitioner’s heirs. The Court held that Section 21, Rule 3 is mandatory: a money claim for a pure debt does not survive the death of the defendant and must be dismissed to be filed in the proper probate court. The existence of a preliminary attachment does not create an exception to this rule.
The legal logic is clear: a writ of attachment is merely an ancillary remedy to secure the outcome of the principal action. Its validity is entirely dependent on the viability of the main case. When the principal money claim is extinguished by the defendant’s death and must be dismissed under the Rules, the very purpose of the attachment is nullified. Consequently, the attachment must be dissolved. To rule otherwise would grant the attaching creditor an undue preference over other creditors of the estate, subverting the orderly settlement of claims in estate proceedings designed to ensure equitable treatment for all. The trial court’s deviation from the prescribed procedure constituted grave abuse of discretion. The claim must be pursued through the estate proceedings of the deceased.