G.R. No. L-4913
SEVERINO VILLARRUZ, administrator of the estate of Gregorio Villarrus, deceased, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISIDRO AZARRAGA, guardian of the minors Maria Felisa and Jesus Bellosillo y Azarraga, defendant-appellant.
January 27, 1910

FACTS:
Gregorio Villarruz and his son, Ignacio Bellosillo, had a business relationship. In 1900, before departing for Manila for medical treatment, Ignacio balanced his account books and determined he owed his father, Gregorio, P10,102. He recorded this balance, placed the book in his safe, and gave the key to Gregorio, explicitly informing him of the debt and where the evidence was. Ignacio died in Manila on November 3, 1900, leaving an estate primarily consisting of P22,870 in bank deposits and two minor children. Gregorio’s claim was the only outstanding debt against Ignacio’s estate.

In 1901, Isidro Azarraga was appointed guardian of Ignacio’s minor children and subsequently withdrew Ignacio’s money from the bank. Gregorio Villarruz died on July 31, 1905, without having collected the debt. Severino Villarruz was appointed administrator of Gregorio’s estate and filed an action against Isidro Azarraga, as guardian, to recover the P10,102, arguing that Isidro, by taking possession of Ignacio’s estate, became responsible for his debts.

The lower court ruled in favor of Severino Villarruz, ordering Isidro Azarraga to pay P10,102 with interest. Isidro Azarraga appealed, raising several assignments of error, including the plaintiff’s lack of personality to sue, the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, and that the action had prescribed.

ISSUE:
1. Does an administrator have the legal personality to initiate an action to recover a debt owed to the estate?
2. Was the action properly brought in the Court of First Instance of Capiz, or did special venue rules for actions against guardians for their official duties dictate otherwise?
3. Had the right to maintain the action prescribed before its commencement?

RULING:
1. Yes. The Court held that an administrator has the express right, under Section 702 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to commence an action for the purpose of recovering a debt due the estate. The complaint filed by Severino Villarruz was found to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, clearly and definitely.
2. Yes. The Court ruled that the action at bar, which is a claim for a debt, does not fall within the terms or meaning of the section of law that specifies special venues for actions against executors, administrators, and guardians concerning their official duties, accounts, or distribution of estates. Therefore, the action was properly brought in the Court of First Instance of Capiz.
3. No. The Court cited Section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure and existing jurisprudence, which establish that for rights of action that arose before the present code took effect, the rule of prescription under the Civil Code or prior laws applies. These rules affirmed the plaintiff’s right to maintain the action, holding that the claim had not prescribed.

The Court found the evidence overwhelmingly supported the lower court’s decision regarding the existence and amount of the debt owed by Ignacio to Gregorio. The judgment of the court below was, therefore, affirmed.