VOL.

341,SEPTEMBER29,2000

441

Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

*

G.R.No.134100.September29,2000.

PURITA ALIPIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS

and ROMEO G. JARING, represented by his AttorneyIn
FactRAMONG.JARING,respondents.
Civil Law; Obligations; Actions; After the death of either of the
spouses, no complaint for the collection of indebtedness chargeable
against the conjugal partnership can be brought against the
surviving spouse.AsheldinCalmav.Taedo,afterthedeathof
eitherofthespouses,nocomplaintforthecollectionofindebtedness
chargeableagainsttheconjugalpartnershipcanbebroughtagainst
the surviving spouse. Instead, the claim must be made in the
proceedings for the liquidation and settlement of the conjugal
property.Thereasonforthisisthatuponthedeathofonespouse,
the powers of administration of the surviving spouse ceases and is
passed to the administrator appointed by the court having
jurisdictionoverthesettlementofestateproceedings.
Same; Same; An obligation is presumed to be only
joint.Indeed, if from the law or the nature or the wording of the
obligation the contrary does not appear, an obligation is presumed
tobeonlyjoint,i.e.,thedebtisdividedintoasmanyequalsharesas
there are debtors, each debt being considered distinct from one
another.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Peoples Law Officeforpetitioner.
Ilaya Law Officeforprivaterespondent.
MENDOZA,J .:
Thequestionfordecisioninthiscaseiswhetheracreditor
can sue the surviving spouse for the collection of a debt
which is owed by the conjugal partnership of gains, or
whether such claim must be filed in proceedings for the
settlementoftheestateofthedece
_______________
* SECONDDIVISION.

442

442

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

dent.ThetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsruledinthe
affirmative.Wereverse.
Thefactsareasfollows:
1
Respondent Romeo Jaring was the lessee of a 14.5
hectarefishpondinBarito,Mabuco,Hermosa,Bataan.The
leasewasforaperiodoffiveyearsendingonSeptember12,
1990.OnJune19,1987,hesubleasedthefishpond,forthe
remaining period of his lease, to the spouses Placido and
Purita Alipio and the spouses Bienvenido and Remedios
Manuel. The stipulated amount of rent was P485,600.00,
payable in two installments of P300,000.00 and
P185,600.00, with the second installment falling due on
June 30, 1989. Each of the four sublessees signed the
contract.
The first installment was duly paid, but of the second
installment,thesublesseesonlysatisfiedaportionthereof,
leaving an unpaid balance of P50,600.00. Despite due
demand, the sublessees failed to comply with their
obligation,sothat,onOctober13,1989,privaterespondent
suedtheAlipioandManuelspousesforthecollectionofthe
said amount before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5,
Dinalupihan,Bataan.Inthealternative,heprayedforthe
rescissionofthesubleasecontractshouldthedefendantsfail
topaythebalance.
PetitionerPuritaAlipiomovedtodismissthecaseonthe
groundthatherhusband,PlacidoAlipio,hadpassedaway
2
onDecember1,1988. ShebasedheractiononRule3,21of
the1964RulesofCourtwhichthenprovidedthatwhenthe
actionisforrecoveryofmoney,debtorinterestthereon,and
the defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of
FirstInstance,itshallbedismissedtobeprosecutedinthe
manner especially provided in these rules. This provision
hasbeenamendedsothatnowRule3,20ofthe1997Rules
ofCivilProcedureprovides:
_______________
1AlthoughintheCourtofAppealsRolloandinthepleadingsinthis

CourtprivaterespondentisreferredtoasRomeoJaring,itappearsthat
hiscorrectnameisRomeroJaringasindicatedinadocumentsignedby
him.
2Records,p.11.

443

VOL.341,SEPTEMBER29,2000

443

Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

Whentheactionisfortherecoveryofmoneyarisingfromcontract,
express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final
judgmentinthecourtinwhichtheactionwaspendingatthetime
ofsuchdeath,itshallnotbedismissedbutshallinsteadbeallowed
to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment
obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner
especiallyprovidedintheseRulesforprosecutingclaimsagainstthe
estateofadeceasedperson.

The trial court denied petitioners motion on the ground

that since petitioner was herself a party to the sublease
contract,shecouldbeindependentlyimpleadedinthesuit
togetherwiththeManuelspousesandthatthedeathofher
3
husbandmerelyresultedinhisexclusionfromthecase.
TheManuelspousesfailedtofiletheiranswer.Forthis
reason,theyweredeclaredindefault.
On February 26, 1991, the lower court rendered
judgment after trial, ordering petitioner and the Manuel
spouses to pay private respondent the unpaid balance of
P50,600.00plusattorneysfeesintheamountofP10,000.00
andthecostsofthesuit.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals on the
groundthatthetrialcourterredindenyinghermotionto
4
dismiss. In its decision rendered on July 10, 1997, the
appellatecourtdismissedherappeal.Itheld:
The rule that an action for recovery of money, debt or interest
thereon must be dismissed when the defendant dies before final
judgmentintheregionaltrialcourt,doesnotapplywherethereare
other defendants against whom the action should be maintained.
This is the teaching of Climaco v. Siy Uy, wherein the Supreme
Courtheld:
Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it is clear that Climaco had a
cause of action against the persons named as defendants therein. It
was, however, a cause of action for the recovery of damages, that is, a
sumofmoney,andthecorrespondingactionis,unfortunately,onethat
doesnotsurviveuponthedeathofthedefendant,
_______________
3Id.,p.37.
4 Per Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and concurred in by Justices Jaime M.

LantinandBuenaventuraJ.Guerrero.

444

444

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rulesof

Court.
xxxxxxxxx
However, the deceased Siy Uy was not the only defendant, Manuel
Co was also named defendant in the complaint. Obviously, therefore,
the order appealed from is erroneous insofar as it dismissed the case
againstCo.(Italicsadded)

Moreover, it is noted that all the defendants, including the

deceased, were signatories to the contract of sublease. The
remainingdefendantscannotavoidtheactionbyclaimingthatthe
death of one of the parties to the contract has totally extinguished
theirobligationasheldinImperial Insurance, Inc. v. David:
We find no merit in this appeal. Under the law and well settled
jurisprudence, when the obligation is a solidary one, the creditor may
bringhisactionintotoagainstanyofthedebtorsobligatedinsolidum.
Thus, if husband and wife bound themselves jointly and severally, in
case of his death, her liability is independent of and separate from her

husbands;shemaybesuedforthewholedebtanditwouldbeerrorto
holdthattheclaimagainstheraswellastheclaimagainstherhusband
should be made in the decedents estate. (Agcaoili vs. Vda. de Agcaoili,
90Phil.97).

Petitioner filed a motion

for reconsideration, but it was
6
denied on June 4, 1998. Hence this petition based on the
followingassignmentoferrors:
A. THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN APPLYING CLIMACO
v.SIYUY,19SCRA858,INSPITEOFTHEFACT
THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT SEEKING
THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AGAINST
REMAINING DEFENDANTS BUT ONLY WITH
RESPECT TO THE CLAIM FOR PAYMENT
AGAINST HER AND HER HUSBAND WHICH
SHOULD BE PROSECUTED AS A MONEY
CLAIM.
B. THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED
REVERSIBLEERRORINAPPLYINGIMPERIAL
INSURANCE, INC. v. DAVID, 133 SCRA 317,
WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE
SPOUSESIN
_______________
5CADecision,pp.67;Rollo,pp.2829.(Emphasisintheoriginal)
6Rollo,p.32.

445

VOL.341,SEPTEMBER29,2000

445

Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

THIS CASE DID NOT BIND THEMSELVES JOINTLY AND
7
SEVERALLYINFAVOROFRESPONDENTJARING.

Thepetitionismeritorious.Weholdthatacreditorcannot
sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary
proceedingforthecollectionofasumofmoneychargeable
against the conjugal partnership and that the proper
remedyisforhimtofileaclaiminthesettlementofestateof
thedecedent.
First. Petitioners husband died on December 1, 1988,
more than ten months before private respondent filed the
collection suit in the trial court on October 13, 1989. This
case thus falls outside of the ambit of Rule 3, 21 which
dealswithdismissalsofcollectionsuitsbecauseofthedeath
of the defendant during the pendency of the case and the
subsequentproceduretobeundertakenbytheplaintiff,i.e.,
thefilingofclaimintheproceedingforthesettlementofthe
decedentsestate.Asalreadynoted,Rule3,20ofthe1997
RulesofCivilProcedurenowprovidesthatthecasewillbe
allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein will
then be enforced in the manner especially provided in the
Rulesforprosecutingclaimsagainsttheestateofadeceased

person. The issue to be resolved is whether private

respondent can, in the first place, file this case against
petitioner.
Petitioner and her late husband, together with the
Manuel spouses, signed the sublease contract binding
themselvestopaytheamountofstipulatedrent.Underthe
law,theAlipiosobligation(andalsothatoftheManuels)is
onewhichischargeableagainsttheirconjugalpartnership.
Under Art. 161(1) of the Civil Code, the conjugal
partnershipisliablefor
Alldebtsandobligationscontractedbythehusbandforthebenefit
of the conjugal partnership, and those contracted by the wife, also
for the same purpose, in the cases where she may legally bind the
8
partnership.
_______________
7Petition,p.7;Rollo,p.15.
8SubstantiallyreproducedundertheFAMILYCODE,ART.121(2).

446

446

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

Whenpetitionershusbanddied,theirconjugalpartnership
9
wasautomaticallydissolved and debts chargeable against
it are to be paid in the settlement of estate proceedings in
accordancewithRule73,2whichstates:
Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage.When the
marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the
community property shall be inventoried, administered, and
liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate
proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the
conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate
proceedingsofeither.
10

AsheldinCalma v. Taedo, after the death of either of

thespouses,nocomplaintforthecollectionofindebtedness
chargeableagainsttheconjugalpartnershipcanbebrought
against the surviving spouse. Instead, the claim must be
madeintheproceedingsfortheliquidationandsettlement
oftheconjugalproperty.Thereasonforthisisthatuponthe
death of one spouse, the powers of administration of the
survivingspouseceasesandispassedtotheadministrator
appointed by the court having
jurisdiction over the
11
settlement of estate proceedings. Indeed, the surviving
spouse is not even a de facto administrator such that
conveyancesmadebyhimofanypropertybelongingtothe
partnershippriortotheliquidationofthemassofconjugal
12
partnershippropertyisvoid.
The ruling in Calma v. Taedo was
reaffirmed in the
13
recent case of Ventura v. Militante. In that case, the
survivingwifewassuedinanamendedcomplaintforasum
ofmoneybasedonanobligationallegedlycontractedbyher
and her late husband. The defendant, who had earlier
moved to dismiss the case, opposed the admission of the

amended complaint on the ground that the death of her

husband terminated their conjugal partnership and that
the
_______________
9CIVILCODE,ART.175(1),nowArt.126(1)oftheFAMILYCODE.
1066Phil.594,598(1938).
11Id.at597.
12

Corpuz v. Corpuz, 97 Phil. 655 (1955). See also Ocampo v.

Potenciano,89Phil.159(1951).UndertheFamilyCode(Art.124),both
the husband and the wife now act as coadministrators of the conjugal
partnershipproperty.
13G.R.No.63145,Oct.5,1999,316SCRA226.

447

VOL.341,SEPTEMBER29,2000

447

Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

plaintiffs claim, which was chargeable against the
partnership, should be made in the proceedings for the
settlement of his estate. The trial court nevertheless
admittedthecomplaintandruled,astheCourtofAppeals
didinthiscase,thatsincethedefendantwasalsoapartyto
the obligation, the death of her husband did not preclude
the plaintiff from filing an ordinary collection suit against
her.Onappeal,theCourtreversed,holdingthat
as correctly argued by petitioner, the conjugal partnership
terminatesuponthedeathofeitherspouse....Whereacomplaint
is brought against the surviving spouse for the recovery of an
indebtedness chargeable against said conjugal [partnership], any
judgment obtained thereby is void. The proper action should be in
theformofaclaimtobefiledinthetestateorintestateproceedings
ofthedeceasedspouse.
Inmanycasesasintheinstantone,evenafterthedeathofone
of the spouses, there is no liquidation of the conjugal partnership.
This does not mean, however, that the conjugal partnership
continues. And private respondent cannot be said to have no
remedy. Under Sec. 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court, he
mayapplyincourtforlettersofadministrationinhiscapacityasa
principal creditor of the deceased . . . if after thirty (30) days from
his death, petitioner failed to apply for administration or request
14
thatadministrationbegrantedtosomeotherperson.

ThecasesrelieduponbytheCourtofAppealsinsupportof
15
its ruling, namely, Climaco
v.
Siy
Uy
and Imperial
16
Insurance, Inc. v. David, arebasedondifferentsetsoffacts.
InClimaco,thedefendants,CarlosSiyUyandManuelCo,
were sued for damages for malicious prosecution. Thus,
apartfromthefacttheclaimwasnotagainstanyconjugal
partnership,itwasonewhichdoesnotsurvivethedeathof
defendantUy,whichmerelyresultedinthedismissalofthe
case as to him but not as to the remaining defendant
ManuelCo.
WithregardtothecaseofImperial,thespousestherein
jointly and severally executed an indemnity agreement
whichbecamethebasisofacollectionsuitfiledagainstthe

wifeafterherhusband
_______________
14Id.at13.
1519SCRA858(1967).
16133SCRA317(1984).

448

448

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

had died. For this reason, the Court ruled that since the
spousesliabilitywassolidary,thesurvivingspousecouldbe
independently sued in an ordinary action for the
enforcementoftheentireobligation.
Itmustbenotedthatformarriagesgovernedbytherules
ofconjugalpartnershipofgains,anobligationenteredinto
by the husband and wife is chargeable against their
conjugal partnership and it is the
partnership which is
17
primarilyboundforitsrepayment. Thus,whenthespouses
aresuedfortheenforcementofanobligationenteredintoby
them, they are being impleaded in their capacity as
representatives of the conjugal partnership and not as
independent debtors such that the concept of joint or
solidaryliability,asbetweenthem,doesnotapply.Buteven
assuming the contrary to be true, the nature of the
obligationinvolvedinthiscase,aswillbediscussedlater,is
not solidary but rather merely joint, making Imperial still
inapplicabletothiscase.
From the foregoing, it is clear that private respondent
cannotmaintainthepresentsuitagainstpetitioner.Rather,
his remedy is to file a claim against the Alipios in the
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of petitioners
husband or, if none has been commenced, he can file 18
a
petitioneitherfortheissuanceoflettersofadministration
19
or for the allowance of will, depending on whether
petitioners husband died intestate or testate. Private
respondent cannot shortcircuit this procedure by lumping
his claim against the Alipios with those against the
Manuels considering that, aside from petitioners lack of
authoritytorepresenttheirconjugalestate,theinventoryof
theAlipiosconjugalpropertyisnecessarybeforeanyclaim
chargeable against it can be paid. Needless to say, such
power exclusively pertains to the court having jurisdiction
overthesettlementofthedecedentsestateandnottoany
othercourt.
Second. The trial court ordered petitioner and the
Manuel spouses to pay private respondent the unpaid
balance of the agreed rent in the amount of P50,600.00
withoutspecifyingwhetherthe
_______________
17See

Castillo,Jr.v.Pasco,11SCRA102(1964).

18RULESOFCOURT,Rule79,2.
19Id.,Rule76,1.

449

VOL.341,SEPTEMBER29,2000

449

Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

amount is to be paid by them jointly or solidarily. In
connectionwiththis,Art.1207oftheCivilCodeprovides:
The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors
inoneandthesameobligationdoesnotimplythateachoneofthe
formerhasarighttodemand,orthateachoneofthelatterisbound
torender,entirecompliancewiththeprestations.Thereisasolidary
liability only when the obligation expressly so estates, or when the
laworthenatureoftheobligationrequiressolidarity.

Indeed,iffromthelaworthenatureorthewordingofthe
obligation the contrary does not appear, an obligation is
presumed to be only joint, i.e., the debt is divided into as
many equal shares as there are debtors,
each debt being
20
considereddistinctfromoneanother.
Private respondent does not cite any provision of law
whichprovidesthatwhentherearetwoormorelessees,or
in this case, sublessees, the latters obligation to pay the
rentissolidary.Tobesure,shouldthelesseesorsublessees
refusetovacatetheleasedpropertyaftertheexpirationof
theleaseperiodanddespiteduedemandsbythelessor,they
canbeheldjointlyandseverallyliabletopayfortheuseof
theproperty.Thebasisoftheirsolidaryliabilityisnotthe
contract of lease or sublease
but the fact that they have
21
become joint tortfeasors. In the case at bar, there is no
allegationthatthesublesseesrefusedtovacatethefishpond
aftertheexpirationofthetermofthesublease.Indeed,the
unpaidbalancesoughttobecollectedbyprivaterespondent
in his collection suit became due on June 30, 1989, long
beforethesubleaseexpiredonSeptember12,1990.
Neither does petitioner contend that it is the nature of
lease that when there are more than two lessees or
sublesseestheirliabilityissolidary.Ontheotherhand,the
pertinent
portion of the contract involved in this case
22
reads:
_______________
20See

CIVILCODE,ART.1208.

21See

Abalosv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.106029,Oct.19,1999,317

SCRA14.
22Records,p.4.(Emphasisadded)

450

450

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

2. That the total lease rental for the subleased fishpond for the
entire period of three (3) years and two (2) months is FOUR
HUNDRED EIGHTYFIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
(P485,600.00) PESOS, including all the improvements, prawns,

milkfishes, crabs and related species thereon as well all fishing

equipment, paraphernalia and accessories. The said amount shall
be paid to the SubLessor by the SubLessees in the following
manner,towit:
A. Threehundredthousand(P300,000.00)Pesosuponsigning
thiscontract;and
B. One Hundred EightyFive Thousand SixHundred
(P185,600.00)PesostobepaidonJune30,1989.

Clearly,theliabilityofthesublesseesismerelyjoint.Since
the obligation of the Manuel and Alipio spouses is
chargeable against their respective conjugal partnerships,
theunpaidbalanceofP50,600.00shouldbedividedintotwo
so that each couple is liable to pay the amount of
P25,300.00.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Bienvenido
Manuel and Remedios Manuel are ordered to pay the
amountofP25,300.00,theattorneysfeesintheamountof
P10,000.00andthecostsofthesuit.Thecomplaintagainst
petitioner is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a
claim by private respondent in the proceedings for the
settlementofestateofPlacidoAlipioforthecollectionofthe
shareoftheAlipiospousesintheunpaidbalanceoftherent
intheamountofP25,300.00.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena and De
Leon, Jr., JJ.,concur.
Petition granted.
Note.Wellentrenched is the rule that solidary
obligationcannotlightlybeinferred.(Smith, Bell and Co.,
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,267SCRA530[1997])
o0o
451

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.