GR 35876; (February, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 35876 ; February 9, 1933
F. M. YAPTICO & CO., LTD., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARINA YULO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Plaintiff F.M. Yaptico & Co. loaned money to Gregorio Yulo in 1910, secured by a mortgage on properties of Gregorio and his wife Filomena Ortiz. Filomena died in 1911. After her death, plaintiff continued advancing money and delivering sugar to Gregorio until 1918. The properties were conjugal. Gregorio died in 1923. Plaintiff filed its claim against Gregorio’s estate and obtained a judgment in 1926. During the probate of Gregorio’s estate, the court approved an exchange (permuta) of properties between Gregorio’s estate and the heirs of Filomena to facilitate administration. Plaintiff knew of these orders but, after a motion for annulment was denied, took no further action. In 1930, plaintiff filed this action against the heirs of Filomena, claiming the debt was for the conjugal partnership and thus her estate was jointly liable. Plaintiff had never filed its claim in Filomena’s intestate proceedings nor sued her estate’s administrator, relying solely on Gregorio and his estate as the debtor.
ISSUE
Whether the heirs of Filomena Ortiz are liable for the debt incurred by Gregorio Yulo, which plaintiff claims was for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, despite plaintiff’s failure to timely assert its claim against Filomena’s estate and its acquiescence to the probate court’s orders distributing her properties.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and absolved the heirs from liability. Plaintiff was guilty of laches, having waited nearly twenty years after Filomena’s death to assert a claim against her estate, despite knowing of the probate proceedings and the property exchange orders. Plaintiff consistently treated Gregorio and his estate as the sole debtor. The final judgment obtained against Gregorio’s estate did not constitute a judgment against the conjugal partnership or Filomena’s estate. Furthermore, the probate court’s orders approving the property exchange were final and could not be collaterally attacked. It would be inequitable to allow plaintiff to now enforce a claim against Filomena’s heirs after such prolonged inaction.
AI Generated by Armztrong.