GR 39802; (February, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 39802 ; February 12, 1934
DOROTEA MENDOZA VIUDA DE BONNEVIE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ANTONIA CECILIO VIUDA DE PARDO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiffs, heirs of Pedro Bonnevie y Orsetty, filed an action to recover P18,000 from the defendants, heirs of Manuel Pardo y Ferrer, based on an alleged debt from a partnership. The defendants had acknowledged the debt in a public instrument. During the suit, defendant Manuel Pardo y Cecilio died, and his executor, Francisco Romero, was substituted. Romero filed a demurrer, arguing lack of jurisdiction and the plaintiffs’ lack of capacity to sue. The trial court sustained the demurrer, ruling that the plaintiffs could not sue as heirs without first being declared as such in special proceedings. The court later dismissed the complaint against the executor. The plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiffs, as heirs, could bring an action for recovery of a debt without first being declared heirs in special proceedings, and whether such an action lies against the executor of a deceased defendant.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s orders.
1. On the capacity of heirs to sue: The Court held that heirs of age may bring an action to collect a credit of the deceased without prior judicial declaration of heirship, provided there are no outstanding debts against the estate, citing Bondad v. Bondad and Ilustre v. Alaras Frondosa. Thus, the trial court’s initial ground for sustaining the demurrer was incorrect.
2. On the action against the executor: The Court ruled that a claim for a sum of money against a deceased debtor must be presented as a claim to the committee appointed in the intestate or testamentary proceedings of the debtor, as required under the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ direct action against the executor did not lie; they must instead present their claim in the testamentary proceedings of Manuel Pardo y Cecilio. The complaint against the other defendants remained subsisting. The denial of the motion for new trial was also upheld.
AI Generated by Armztrong.