526

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Paredesvs.Moya

No.L38051.December26,1974.*
SEVERINO PAREDES, and VICTORIO G. IGNACIO, petitioners,vs.
THE HON. JOSE L. MOYA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch IX and CARMENCITA NAVARROAdministratrix
(SubstitutedfordeceasedAugustKuntze),respondents.
________________
1 Dyvs.Republic,L21958,Sept.28,1970;35SCRA65;YuNamvs.Republic,16

SCRA733;Dyvs.Republic,16SCRA667;CelerinoYuSecovs.Republic,108Phil.807.
*SECONDDIVISION.

VOL.61,DECEMBER26,1974

527
527

Paredesvs.Moya

Civil procedure; Survival of actions; Appeals; Where defendant dies during

pendencyofhisappealinthecaseofamoneyclaim,theappealshouldcontinueand
ifthejudgmentisaffirmed,theplaintiffmustgototheprobatecourtforanorder
directingtheexecutororadministratortosatisfythejudgment.Weholdthatinthe
caseofamoneyclaim,wherethedefendantdiesduringthependencyofhisappeal
from the judgment rendered against him, the appeal should not be dismissed; it
should continue, but the deceased defendant should be substituted by his legal
representative,namely,theexecutororadministratoroftheestate.Ifthejudgmentof
thelowerisaffirmed,theplaintiffmustafterwardsgototheprobatecourtforan
orderdirectingtheexecutororadministratortosatisfythejudgment.TheCourtof
First Instance that originally rendered the judgment has no power to order its
executionandalevyonthepropertiesofthedeceasedbecausethesamearealready
in custodia legis in the probate court where administration proceedings for the
settlementoftheestateofthedeceaseddefendantarealreadypending.
Same;Same;Same;Ifdefendantdiesafterfinaljudgmenthasbeenrendered,
theactionsurvivesandtheappealshouldproceedwiththedeceaseddefendantbeing
represented by the executor or administrator.Conversely, if the defendant dies
afterfinaljudgmenthasbeenrenderedbytheCFI,asinthecaseatbar,theaction
survives.Andasalreadyabovestated,theappealshouldproceedwiththedeceased
defendantbeingsubstitutedbyhislegalrepresentative.Thiswouldpreventauseless
repetition of presenting (anew) before the probate court the evidence already

presentedintheCourtofFirstInstanceonthevalidityoftheclaim.xxxButitwas
erroronthepartoftheplaintiffParedes,nowoneofthepetitioners,tohavethe
moneyjudgmentinhisfavorexecutedagainstthepropertiesofthedeceased.The
proper remedy of plaintiff Paredes should have been to file his claim in the
administration proceedings of theestate of thedeceased defendant Kuntze where
privaterespondentistheadministratrix.(Section5,Rule86,RulesofCourt).
Same;Same;Judgmentformoneyagainstadeceasedshouldbefiledinthe
administrationproceedingonthedecedentsestate.Judgmentformoneyagainst
thedecedent,mustbefiledatthetimelimitedinthenotice(tocreditors)beforethe
court where the administration proceeding involving the estate of the deceased
Kuntzearepending,xxxalthoughthevalidityofthemoneyclaimcoveredbya
judgmentagainstthedecedentwhichhasalreadybecomefinalandexecutorycanno
longerbelitigatedinthecourtwhereadministrationproceedingsforthesettlementof
thepropertiesofthedeceasedarestillpending,unliketheothermoneyclaimswhose
validitymayyetbechallengedbytheexecutororadministrator.
528

528
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Paredesvs.Moya

Same;Same;Execution;Writofexecutionnotproperforpaymentofdebtsand
expensesofadministration.InthecaseofAldamizvs.JudgeoftheCourtofFirst
InstanceofMindoro,promulgatedonDec.29,1949(85Phil228),Wealreadyheld
thatthewritofexecutionwasnottheproperprocedureforthepaymentofdebtsand
expensesoftheadministration.Theproperprocedureisforthecourttoorderthe
administratrixtomakethepayment;andifthereisnosufficientcashonhand,to
orderthesaleofthepropertiesandoutoftheproceedstopaythedebtsandexpenses
of the administration. We followed the same ruling in the case of Domingo vs.
Garlitos,June29,1963,8SCRA443.
Same;Same;Same;Writofexecutionnotproperprocedureforpaymentofdebt
ofdeceasedinconnectionwithamoneyjudgmentthatbecamefinal.Weholdthat
the same rule must be applied in connection with money judgments against the
deceasedthathavealreadybecomefinal,suchasthemoneyjudgmentinfavorof
petitionerParedes.Nowritofexecutionshouldissueagainstthepropertiesofthe
deceased.Theclaimforsatisfactionofthemoneyjudgmentshouldbepresentedin
theprobatecourtforpaymentbytheadministrator.
Same;Judgments;Execution;Voidjudgmentororderproducesnolegaleffect.
Inthisjurisdiction,avoidjudgmentororderisinlegaleffectnojudgmentororder.

Byitnorightsaredivested.Fromitnorightsareobtained.Beingworthless,itneither
bindsnorbarsanyone.Allactsperformedunderitandallclaimsflowingfromitare
void.
Sale;Purchaserinbadfaith;BuyerofRightofExecutionSalenotingood
faithwhenattimeofpurchaseadministratrixofdeceaseddebtorsestatehadalready
filedamotiontoquashthewritofexecutionandauctionsale.PetitionerIgnacio
cannotbeconsideredasapurchaseringoodfaith,forIgnaciopurchasedtheRightof
ExecutionSaleofParedesoverthepropertyinquestiononOctober10,1973when,
atthattime,therespondentadministratrixoftheestateofKuntzehadalreadyfiledon
September6,1973amotiontoquashtheWritofExecutionandauctionsale.

PETITIONforcertiorarifromanorderoftheCourtofFirstInstanceof
Manila.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
CamiloV.Pea&Associatesforpetitioners.
ManuelS.Tonogbanuaforrespondents.
VOL.61,DECEMBER26,1974

529
529

Paredesvs.Moya

FERNANDEZ,J.:
Thisisapetitionforcertiorariimpugningthelegalityoftheorderofthe
respondentcourtdatedNovember2,1973,nullifyingitsorderofexecution
issuedonAugust18,1978pursuanttothejudgmentthathasbecomefinal
andexecutoryonJune28,1973,andthecorrespondinglevyonexecution
onAugust22,1973andthepublicauctionsaleheldonOctober2,1973.
The background facts and circumstances of the instant case are as
follows:
PetitionerSeverinoParedescommencedasuitonJanuary4,1964in
CFIManila, docketed as Civil Case No. 55880,1 for the collection of
separationandovertimepaysagainsthisemployer,AugustKuntze.On
March 5, 1971, a decision was rendered against the defendant August
Kuntze,fromwhichjudgment,lieappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.While
thecasewaspendingappealinthesaidCourt,AugustKuntzediedonJune
19, 1972. Accordingly, plaintiff Paredes (now petitioner) was duly
notified.2Thereafter,CarmencitaD.NavarroKuntze,3administratrixofthe

estateofthedeceased,wassubstitutedinhisplaceaspartyintheappealed
case.OnJune5,1973theCourtofAppealsdismissedtheappealinsaid
CivilCaseNo.55880forappellantsfailuretofiletheprintedrecordon
appeal,andsotherecordofthecasewasorderedremandedtorespondent
court.4
A motion for execution was filed by plaintiffappellee (petitioner
Paredes).OnAugust22,1973theprovincialSheriffofRizalleviedonthe
propertiesofdefendantappellant(nowsubstitutedbytheAdministratrixof
theestateoftheDeceased,consistingoftwo(2)lotscoveredbyTCTNo.
45089issuedbytheRegisterofDeedsoftheProvinceofRizal. 5 Inthe
auction sale conducted by the Sheriff of Rizal on October 2, 1973,
plaintiffappellee(petitionerParedes)beingthehighestbidder,acquired
saidlotforthetotalsumofP17,296.16,asper
________________
1Record,p.2.
2Record,pp.7071.
3Ibid,p.70.
4Ibid,p.70.
5Ibid,p.3.

530

530
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Paredesvs.Moya

certificate of sale which was duly annotated in the back of TCT No.
45089.6
However,inspiteofaMotiontoQuashtheWritofExecutionfiledby
respondentappellant(Administratrix) on September 6, 1973 and still
pendingresolution,petitionerParedes(plaintiffappellee,below)soldthe
propertyheacquiredintheexecutionsaleinfavorofhiscopetitioner,
VictorioIgnacioonOctober10,1973.7
NotwithstandingthevigorousoppositiontotheMotiontoQuashthe
Writ of Execution, respondent Court, on November 2, 1973, issued an
order setting asie the Writ of Execution of August 22,1973, and the
Sheriffs Sale and Public Auction of the property covered by TCT No.
45089,withoutprejudicetothefilingofthejudgmentasaclaiminthe
proceedingsforsettlementoftheestateofthedeceased.8

Variousquestionshavebeenraisedbytheparties.Weshallnowruleon
them.
Weholdthatinthecaseofamoneyclaim,wherethedefendantdies
duringthependencyofhisappealfromthejudgmentrenderedagainsthim,
theappealshouldnotbedismissed;itshouldcontinue,butthedeceased
defendantshouldbesubstitutedbyhislegalrepresentative,namely,the
executororadministratoroftheestate.Ifthejudgmentofthelowercourt
isaffirmed,theplaintiffmustafterwardsgototheprobatecourtforan
orderdirectingtheexecutororadministratortosatisfythejudgment.The
CourtofFirstInstancethatoriginallyrenderedthejudgmenthasnopower
toorderitsexecutionandalevyonthepropertiesofthedeceasedbecause
the same are already in custodia legis in the probate court where
administrationproceedingsforthesettlementoftheestateofthedeceased
defendantarealreadypending.
Section21,Rule3oftheRulesofCourt,provides:
When the action is for recovery of money, debt or interest thereon, and the
defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be
dismissedtobeprosecutedinthemannerespeciallyprovidedintheserules.

Conversely,ifthedefendantdies after finaljudgmenthasbeenrendered

bytheCFI,asinthecaseatbar,theactionsurvives.
________________
6Ibid,p.4.
7Ibid,p.4.
8Ibid,pp.45.

VOL.61,DECEMBER26,1974

531
531

Paredesvs.Moya

Andasalreadyabovestated,theappealshouldproceedwiththedeceased
defendantbeingsubstitutedbyhislegalrepresentative.Thiswouldprevent
a useless repetition of presenting (anew) before the probate court the
evidencealreadypresentedintheCourtofFirstInstanceonthevalidityof
the claim. Consequently, contrary to respondents claim, the judgment
against the deceased Kuntze became final and executory; it was not
arrestedbyhisdeathonJuly19,1973.

ButitwaserroronthepartoftheplaintiffParedes,nowoneofthe
petitioners,tohavethemoneyjudgmentinhisfavorexecutedagainstthe
propertiesofthedeceasedKuntze.
TheproperremedyofplaintiffParedesshouldhavebeentofilehis
claim in the administration proceedings of the estate of the deceased
defendantKuntzewhereprivaterespondentistheadministratrix,because:
Allclaimsformoneyagainstthedecedent,arisingfromcontract,expressorimplied,
whetherthesamebedue,notdue,orcontingent,allclaimsforfuneralexpensesand
expensesforthelastsicknessofthedecedent,andjudgmentformoneyagainstthe
decedent,mustbefiledwithinthetimelimitedinthenotice;(tothecreditors)xxx.

Judgmentformoneyagainstthedecedent,mustbefiledatthetimelimited
in the notice (to creditors) before the court where the administration
proceeding involving the estate of the deceased Kuntze are pending.
Section5,Rule86oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
Allclaimsformoneyagainstthedecedent,arisingfromcontract,expressorimplied,
whetherthesamebedue,notdue,orcontingent,allclaimsforfuneralexpensesand
expensesforthelastsicknessofthedecedentandjudgmentformoneyagainstthe
decedent,mustbefiled(beforetheprobatecourt)withinthetimelimitedinthenotice
(tothecreditors);otherwisetheyarebarredforever,exceptthattheymaybesetforth
ascounterclaimsinanyactionthattheexecutororadministratormaybringagainst
theclaimants.(1stsentence,Section5,Rule86oftheRulesofCourt)(Italicsours)

Consequently,therespondentcourt,inthechallengedorderofNovember
2,1973,correctlynullifieditsorderofexecutionissuedonAugust18,
1973pursuanttothejudgmentwhichbecamefinalandexecutoryonJune
28,1973andthecorrespondinglevyonexecutiononAugust22,1973and
thepublicauctionsaleheldonOctober2,1973.
532

532
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Paredesvs.Moya

Thejudgmentformoneyagainstthedeceasedstandsinthesamefooting
as:
Allclaimsformoneyagainstthedecedent,arisingfromcontract,expressorimplied,
whetherthesamebedue,notdue,orcontingent,allclaimsforfuneralexpensesand
expensesforthelastsicknessofthedecedent,(1stsentence,Sec.5,Rule86ofthe
RulesofCourt),Rule86oftheRulesofCourt).

althoughthevalidityofthemoneyclaimcoveredbyajudgmentagainst
thedecedentwhichhasalreadybecomefinalandexecutorycannolonger
be litigated in the court where administration proceedings for the
settlementofthepropertiesofthedeceasedarestillpending,unlikethe
othermoneyclaimswhosevaliditymayyetbechallengedbytheexecutor
oradministrator.
In the case of Aldamiz vs. Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Mindoro,promulgatedonDecember29,1949(85Phil.228),Wealready
held that the writ of execution was not the proper procedure for the
payment of debts and expenses of the administration. The proper
procedureisforthecourttoordertheadministratrixtomakethepayment;
andifthereisnosufficientcashonhand,toorderthesaleoftheproperties
and out of the proceeds to pay the debts and expenses of the
administration.WefollowedthesamerulinginthecaseofDomingovs.
Garlitos,June29,1963,8SCRA443,withrespecttothepaymentofestate
andinheritancetaxes.
Thepetitiontosetasidetheaboveordersofthecourtbelowandfortheexecutionof
theclaimoftheGovernmentagainsttheestatemustbedeniedforlackofmerit.The
ordinaryprocedurebywhichtosettleclaimsofindebtednessagainsttheestateofa
deceasedperson,asaninheritancetax,isfortheclaimanttopresentaclaimbefore
theprobatecourtsothatsaidcourtmayordertheadministratortopaytheamount
thereof.TosucheffectisthedecisionofthisCourtinAldamizvs.JudgeoftheCourt
ofFirstInstanceofMindoroG.R.No.L2360,Dec.29,1949,thus:
xxxawritofexecutionisnottheproperprocedureallowedbytheRulesofCourtforthe
paymentofdebtsandexpensesofadministration.Theproperprocedureisforthecourtto
orderthesaleofpersonalestateorthesaleormortgageofrealpropertyofthedeceasedand
alldebtsorexpensesofadministrationshouldbepaidoutoftheproceedsofthesaleor
mortgage.Theorderforthesaleormortgageshouldbeissued
533
VOL.61,DECEMBER26,1974
533
Paredesvs.Moya
uponmotionoftheadministratorandwiththewrittennoticetoalltheheirs,legateesand
deviseesresidinginthePhilippines,accordingtoRule89,section3,andRule90,section21
Andwhensaleormortgageofrealestateistobemade,theregulationscontainedinRule
90,section7,shouldbecompliedwith.

Execution may issue only where the devisees, legatees or heirs have entered into
possessionoftheirrespectiveportionsintheestatepriortosettlementandpaymentofthe
debtsandexpensesofadministrationanditislaterascertainedthattherearesuchdebtsand
expensestobepaid,inwhichcasethecourthavingjurisdiction:oftheestatemay,byorder
forthatpurpose,afterhearing,settletheamountoftheirseveralliabilities,andorderhow
much and in what manner each person shall contribute, and may issue execution if
circumstancesrequire(Rule39,section6;seealsoRule74,section4;Italicsours).And
thisisnottheinstantcase.

Weholdthatthesamerulemustbeappliedinconnectionwithmoney
judgmentsagainstthedeceasedthathavealreadybecomefinal,suchasthe
money judgment in favor of petitioner Paredes. No writ of execution
should issue against the properties of the deceased. The claim for
satisfaction of the money judgment should be presented in the probate
courtforpaymentbytheadministrator.
The legal basis for such a procedure is the fact that in the testate or intestate
proceedingstosettletheestateofadeceasedperson,thepropertiesbelongingtothe
estateareunderthejurisdictionofthecourtandsuchjurisdictioncontinuesuntilsaid
properties have been distributed among the heirs entitled thereto. During the
pendency of the proceedings all the estate is in custodia legis and the proper
procedureisnottoallowthesheriff.,inthecaseofcourtjudgment,toseizethe
propertiesbattoaskthecourtforanordertorequiretheadministratortopaythe
amountduefromtheestateandrequiredtobepaid.(Domingovs.Garlitos,etal.,
June29,1963,8SCRA,443,446)

Inthisjurisdiction,avoidjudgmentororderisinlegaleffectnojudgment
ororder.Byitnorightsaredivested.Fromitnorightscanbeobtained.
Being worthless, it neither binds nor bars anyone. All acts performed
underitandallclaimsflowingfromitarevoid.(Chavezvs.Courtof
Appeals,etal.,L29169,August19,1968,24SCRA663).
OurdecisioninthiscaseagainstthepetitionerParedesbindshisco
petitionerVictorioG.Ignacionotonlybecausetheorderofexecutionand
thepublicauctionsaleinquestionarenulland
534

534
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Paredesvs.Moya

void, but also because petitioner Ignacio cannot be considered as a

purchaseringoodfaith,forIgnaciopurchasedtheRightofExecution

SaleofParedesoverthepropertyinquestiononOctober10,1973when,
at that time, the respondent administratrix of the estate of Kuntze had
already filed on September 6,1973 a motion to quash the Writ of
Executionandauctionsale;asamatteroffactthevalidityofsaidwritof
executionwasstillupforrespondentcourtsresolutiononOctober14,
1973afterthepartiesshallhavesubmittedmemorandaonthequestion
raisedintheaforesaidmotionasrequiredbytherespondentcourtinits
orderofSeptember29,1973.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the order of the Lower Court
nullifying its Order of Execution of August 18, 1973, the levy on
executiondatedAugust22,1973,andtheauctionsaleofOctober2,1973,
isherebyaffirmedandthepetitionforcertiorariisherebyDISMISSED,
withoutprejudicetothefilingofthejudgment(infavorofParedes)asa
claimintheproceedingsforthesettlementoftheestateofthedeceased
(Kuntze).Withoutcosts.
SOORDERED.
Fernando(Chairman),Barredo,AntonioandAquino,JJ.,concur.
Orderaffirmed;petitiondismissed.
Notes,Actions which do not Survive.The following actions for
recoveryofmoney,debtorinterestthereonbroughtagainstapartywho
dies during the pendency of the case before the trial court should be
dismissedandfiledasaclaimagainstthedecedentsestate:
1. 1.
Actionsformoneyagainstthedecedent,arisingfromcontract,expressor
implied,whetherthesamebedue,notdueorcontingent(Sec.5,
Rule86,RulesofCourt);
2. 2.
Actionsforfuneralexpensesandexpensesforthelastsicknessofthe
decedent(Section5,Rule86,RulesofCourt);
3. 3.
Allactionsbasedonjudgmentformoneyagainstthedecedent(Section
5,Rule86,RulesofCourt).
Actions which Survive.If the action is not one for the recovery of
money, debt or interest thereon, then the action survives and may be
continued against the decedents legal representative, such as the
following:

VOL.61,DECEMBER26,1974

535
535

Paredesvs.Moya

1. 1.
Actionstorecoverrealorpersonalproperty,orinteresttherein,fromthe
estate,ortoenforcealienthereon(Section1,Rule87,Rulesof
Court);BoardofLiquidatorsvs.HeirsofMaximoM.Kalaw,20
SCRA,987);
2. 2.
Actionstocompelrecognition,suchasanactionforacknowledgment
againstthedefendantasthenaturalfatheroftheplaintiff
(Masecampovs.Masecampo,11Phil.1);
3. 3.
Actionstorecoverdamagesforaninjurytopersonorproperty,realor
personal(Sec.1,Rule87,RulesofCourt;ToGuiocCovs.Del
Rosario,7Phil.126);
4. 4.
Actionstoforecloseamortgageoranyothersecurity(Sec.7,Rule86,
RulesofCourt)
An action for damages for malicious prosecution is not an action to
recoverdamagesforinjurytoperson,butanactiontorecoverasumof
money, andtherefore,onethatdoesnot survive uponthedeath ofthe
defendant, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of Rule 3,
RulesofCourt.(Climacovs.SiyUy,19SCRA858).
o0o
536
Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.