G.R. No. L-18107; August 30, 1962
MARIA G. AGUAS, FELIX GUARDINO and FRANCISCO SALINAS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. HERMOGENES LLEMOS, deceased defendant substituted by his representatives, PERPETUA YERRO-LLEMOS, HERMENEGILDO LLEMOS, FELINO LLEMOS and AMADO LLEMOS, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On March 14, 1960, plaintiffs Maria Aguas, Felix Guardino, and Francisco Salinas filed a complaint for damages against Hermogenes Llemos in the Court of First Instance of Catbalogan, Samar. They alleged that Llemos had maliciously served them by registered mail with a copy of a petition for a writ of possession, with a notice of hearing set for February 23, 1960. Relying on this notice, the plaintiffs traveled from Manila to Samar with their lawyers, only to discover that no such petition had actually been filed. Llemos also failed to appear, causing the plaintiffs unnecessary expenditure, trouble, and mental anguish.
Before he could file an answer, defendant Hermogenes Llemos died on April 1, 1960. The plaintiffs, with leave of court, amended their complaint to substitute the deceased defendant with his heirs. On July 21, 1960, the heirs filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion on August 12, 1960, ruling that the proper party should have been the legal representative (executor or administrator) of the estate, not the heirs directly. It further held that since the action was for a money claim, the proper procedure was to institute testate or intestate proceedings and to file the claim therein.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the grounds that (1) the heirs are not the proper parties, and (2) the action for damages based on tort abates upon the death of the defendant and must be pursued in estate settlement proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court, while noting that the appeal had become moot due to an amicable settlement between the parties, clarified the substantive legal principles involved. It held that the trial court’s dismissal was erroneous. The action for damages based on alleged malicious and tortious conduct survives the death of the defendant. This conclusion is drawn from a contrast between Sections 5 and 1 of Rules 87 and 88 of the Rules of Court, respectively.
Rule 87, Section 5 enumerates claims that are barred if not filed in estate proceedings, which include claims for funeral expenses, last sickness, money judgments, and “all claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied.” The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ claim, being for damages arising from tort (alleged malicious act), does not arise from contract and thus does not fall under this exclusive list of claims that must be filed in the estate proceedings. Conversely, Rule 88, Section 1 explicitly provides that actions which survive against a decedent’s executor or administrator include “actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property.” The Court adopted a broad interpretation, citing jurisprudence that “injury to property” is not confined to injury to specific property but extends to any wrongful act that causes a diminution of one’s personal estate, such as incurring unnecessary expenses due to another’s malicious act. Therefore, the action survives and may be prosecuted against the deceased defendant’s legal representative. The appeal was dismissed for being moot.