G.R. No. L-32425 November 21, 1984
The Imperial Insurance, Inc., plaintiff-appellee, vs. Emilia T. David, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The Imperial Insurance, Inc. filed a collection suit against Emilia T. David based on three causes of action arising from indemnity agreements. The first two involved surety bonds posted by the company to lift writs of attachment in two civil cases (for P60,000 and P40,000) for the benefit of David and her now-deceased husband, Felicisimo V. Reyes, who had jointly and severally executed the indemnity agreements. The third cause involved unpaid premiums. After Reyes died, his estate underwent intestate proceedings with David as administratrix, and notices to creditors were duly published. Judgments were rendered in the underlying civil cases against the spouses, leading to claims against the surety bonds. Imperial Insurance demanded payment from David and, upon her failure to pay, filed the present suit.
David moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the claims should have been presented against her husband’s estate under Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court, and that such failure barred the action. The trial court denied the motion and, after trial, ruled in favor of Imperial Insurance, ordering David to pay the principal amounts, accrued premiums, and attorney’s fees. David appealed, reiterating her jurisdictional argument and contesting the award of attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the complaint against Emilia T. David personally, despite the creditor’s failure to file its claims against the estate of her deceased husband.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding it had jurisdiction. The legal logic centers on the nature of solidary obligations. The indemnity agreements were executed jointly and severally by David and her husband. Under the Civil Code, a solidary obligation allows the creditor to demand complete performance from any one of the solidary debtors. Consequently, David’s liability was independent and separate from that of her deceased husband.
The Court ruled that the procedure under Rule 86 for filing claims against a decedent’s estate is not a mandatory condition precedent when the creditor opts to proceed against a surviving solidary debtor. The creditor has the choice to either file a claim in the estate proceedings or institute an ordinary action against the surviving debtor. Imperial Insurance validly exercised its right to sue David alone for the entire obligation. The award of attorney’s fees was also sustained as having a factual and legal basis. Therefore, the failure to file a claim against the estate did not bar the action or deprive the court of jurisdiction over David.