GR L 28046; (May, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28046. May 16, 1983.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. INDEPENDENT PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a collection suit against several defendants who were solidary debtors. During the pendency of the case and after PNB had presented its evidence, one of the solidary debtors, Ceferino Valencia, died. The trial court, upon motion, dismissed the entire complaint. It ruled that pursuant to Section 6, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, the money claim, being based on contract, must be prosecuted in the testate or intestate proceedings for the settlement of the deceased defendant’s estate.
PNB appealed the dismissal, asserting its right under Article 1216 of the Civil Code to proceed against any one, some, or all of the solidary debtors. It argued that the death of one defendant does not strip the court of jurisdiction to continue the case against the surviving debtors.
ISSUE
Whether the death of one solidary debtor during the pendency of a collection suit deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the case against the surviving solidary debtors.
RULING
No. The trial court’s order of dismissal is reversed. The Supreme Court held that Article 1216 of the Civil Code grants the creditor a substantive right to seek satisfaction from any, some, or all solidary debtors simultaneously. This right of choice is vested in the creditor. The death of one solidary debtor does not compel the creditor to abandon his action against the surviving debtors and instead file a claim against the decedent’s estate.
Section 6, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court is merely procedural. It provides the mechanism for a creditor who chooses to pursue the claim against the estate of a deceased solidary debtor. It does not mandate that this is the exclusive remedy, nor does it condition the court’s jurisdiction over an action against surviving debtors upon the filing of a claim in the estate proceedings. To construe the procedural rule as repealing or diminishing the substantive right under Article 1216 is erroneous, as a procedural rule cannot amend substantive law.
Consequently, the court retains jurisdiction to continue the proceedings and decide the case against the surviving solidary debtors. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.