G.R. No. L-5398
Matilde Aramburu y Garcia, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Angel Ortiz, defendant-appellee.
January 7, 1910

FACTS: Angel Ortiz previously obtained a judgment (in Civil Case No. 2060, affirmed by the Supreme Court) against the eleven heirs of Ceferino Aramburu y Lambarri, including Matilde Aramburu y Garcia, for the sum of P345,193.31 plus 8% interest. The judgment included a proviso that five minor heirs would only be obligated to the extent of their inheritance.

Matilde Aramburu y Garcia, one of the heirs, subsequently filed a complaint against Ortiz. She alleged that her one-eleventh proportionate share of the judgment debt amounted to P31,381.21 plus interest. However, through execution of the judgment against her property, she paid a total of P65,308.92. She claimed this resulted in an excess payment of P25,561.95, which Ortiz improperly collected and refused to refund.

Ortiz, the defendant-appellee, admitted the previous judgment but denied the claim of improper collection or excess payment. He argued that the liability of the heirs for the deceased’s debt was “in solidum” (joint and several) under the Civil Code and jurisprudence.

ISSUE: Was Matilde Aramburu y Garcia entitled to a refund from Angel Ortiz for the amount she paid beyond her one-eleventh proportionate share, or was her liability as an heir for the hereditary debt solidary, requiring her to seek contribution from her co-heirs instead?

RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, denying Matilde Aramburu y Garcia’s claim for a refund.

The Court held that the obligation of the heirs to pay the debts of their deceased principal is in solidum (joint and several). Citing Articles 1082, 1084, and 1085 of the Civil Code and Spanish jurisprudence, the Court explained:
Article 1082 allows a hereditary creditor to oppose the division of the inheritance until paid or secured, but does not limit their right to demand payment.
Article 1084 establishes that each heir is liable in solidum for the hereditary debts. The creditor can demand the entire amount of the debt from any of the heirs.
* Article 1085 provides that a co-heir who pays more than their proportionate share has a right to demand contribution from the others.

Therefore, the judgment in Civil Case No. 2060, even without explicitly stating “in solidum,” must be understood as imposing a solidary obligation on the heirs due to the substantive law governing hereditary debts. Angel Ortiz was thus entitled to collect the full amount of the debt from any of the heirs. Matilde Aramburu y Garcia’s remedy for having paid more than her proportionate share is to seek contribution from her co-heirs, not a refund from the creditor, Ortiz.