G.R. No. L-6513, December 15, 1911
FAUSTINO LICHAUCO, ET AL. vs. ANA ALEJANDRINO, ET AL.

FACTS

On July 30, 1886, Mariano Alejandrino borrowed P6,000 from Cornelia Laochangco, secured by a mortgage. Cornelia Laochangco is the mother of the plaintiffs (Faustino Lichauco and his co-heirs), while Mariano Alejandrino is the father of the defendant Ana Alejandrino. On August 15, 1895, the debt was liquidated, leaving a balance of P4,350. On December 15, 1906, all of Mariano Alejandrino’s heirs, except Ana Alejandrino, executed an agreement (Exhibit D) obligating themselves to pay the plaintiffs the balance of their father’s debt with 12% interest. Ana Alejandrino did not sign this agreement. The plaintiffs sued Ana Alejandrino and her husband to recover her one-sixth share of the total debt, amounting to P1,657.75 with 12% interest. The trial court held Ana liable only for her one-sixth share of the principal debt (P610.22) with 6% interest from the filing of the complaint, rejecting the claim for 12% interest. The plaintiffs appealed. Additionally, the suit was filed by Faustino Lichauco “in his own name and in behalf of his coheirs,” but the record did not show that these co-heirs authorized the suit or the attorney representing them.

ISSUE

1. Whether Ana Alejandrino is liable for 12% interest on her share of the debt.
2. Whether the action was properly brought by Faustino Lichauco on behalf of his co-heirs without their express authorization.

RULING

1. On the liability for interest: Ana Alejandrino is not liable for the 12% interest. She was not a party to the agreement (Exhibit D) wherein the other heirs agreed to pay 12% interest. There was no evidence that she was ever demanded to pay her share of the debt, either judicially or extrajudicially. Thus, she is liable only for her one-sixth share of the principal debt, amounting to P610.22, with legal interest of 6% from the filing of the complaint (July 16, 1908). The trial court’s ruling on this point is affirmed.

2. On the propriety of the action: The action was improperly brought as to the co-heirs. Faustino Lichauco filed the suit in his name and on behalf of his co-heirs, but the record did not show that these co-heirs authorized the suit or the attorney to represent them. Under Section 34 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), a party must appear either personally or through a duly authorized attorney. Since the co-heirs did not appear in either manner, they were not properly before the court, and any judgment would not bind them. Following the precedent in Lichauco vs. Limjuco (19 Phil. Rep., 12), the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the lower court. However, to avoid further litigation, the Court allowed the co-heirs ten days from notice to appear personally or by attorney in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga and indicate their conformity with the proceedings. If they do so, the trial court is directed to enter a judgment confirming its original decision. Otherwise, the judgment remains set aside.

The Court, en banc, concurred.