G.R. No. 63145 , October 5, 1999
Sulpicia Ventura, petitioner, vs. Hon. Francis J. Militante, in His Capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial District, Branch XII, Cebu City; and John Uy, respondent.

FACTS

Private respondent John Uy filed a Complaint for a Sum of Money and Damages against the “ESTATE OF CARLOS NGO as represented by surviving spouse Ms. SULPICIA VENTURA.” The complaint alleged that during his lifetime, Carlos Ngo incurred a debt of P48,889.70 for the benefit of his family, which remained unpaid despite demands. Petitioner Sulpicia Ventura, as the representative of the estate, moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that an estate lacks legal personality to be sued. Private respondent then manifested his intent to amend the complaint. The public respondent judge granted time to amend. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the money claim did not survive the death of Carlos Ngo and that jurisdiction belonged to a probate court. Private respondent opposed, contending the petitioner, as the wife, was liable for the obligation that benefited the family. The judge ordered the filing of an amended complaint. Private respondent filed an Amended Complaint, now naming “MS. SULPICIA VENTURA” as the sole defendant and alleging that “he and his wife, the defendant herein are indebted.” Petitioner filed a Comment, reiterating that the debt, whether personal or conjugal, could not be pursued in an ordinary action as the conjugal partnership terminated upon death and claims must be settled in a testate or intestate proceeding. The public respondent judge issued the assailed Order, denying the motion for reconsideration and directing petitioner to file an Answer, reasoning that the amended complaint alleged an indebtedness incurred by both Carlos Ngo and the defendant Sulpicia Ventura, and the death of Carlos Ngo did not preclude an action against the living defendant.

ISSUE

Whether the public respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Dismiss and ordering petitioner to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint for a sum of money based on a debt incurred during the marriage, despite the death of the husband.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that an estate is not a legal entity and cannot be sued. The amended complaint, while now naming Sulpicia Ventura as defendant, was essentially an action to enforce a money claim against the estate of the deceased Carlos Ngo. The allegation that “he and his wife… are indebted” did not transform the nature of the claim into a personal obligation of the surviving spouse. The debt, even if chargeable against the conjugal partnership, became a claim against the estate upon the death of the husband, as the conjugal partnership is terminated by death. Claims against the conjugal partnership must be filed in the proper testate or intestate proceedings for settlement of the estate, not in an ordinary civil action. The trial court therefore did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter. The public respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the complaint.