EN BANC
G.R. No. L-44837
November 23, 1938
SOCORRO LEDESMA and ANA QUITCO LEDESMA,
plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Adriano T. de la Cruz for appellants.
Simeon Bitanga for appellees.
VILLA-REAL, J.:
This case is
before us by virtue of an appeal taken by the defendants Conchita McLachlin,
Lorenzo Quitco, Jr., Sabina Quitco, Rafael Quitco and Marcela Quitco, from the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, the dispositive
part of which reads:
For the
foregoing considerations, the court renders judgment in this case declaring Ana
Quitco Ledesma an acknowledged natural daughter of the deceased Lorenzo M.
Quitco, for legal purposes, but absolving the defendants as to the prayer in
the first cause of action that the said Ana Quitco Ledesma be declared entitled
to share in the properties left by the deceased Eusebio Quitco.
As to the
second cause of action, the said defendants are ordered to pay to the plaintiff
Socorro Ledesma, jointly and severally, only the sum of one thousand five
hundred pesos(P1,500), with legal interest thereon from the filing of this complaint
until fully paid. No pronouncement is made as to the costs. So ordered.
In support
of their appeal, the appellants assign the following errors allegedly committed
by the trial court in its aforesaid decision:
1. That the trial court erred in holding, that the action
for the recovery of the sum of P1,500, representing the last installment of the
note Exhibit C has not yet prescribed.
2. That the trial court erred in holding that the property
inherited by the defendants from their deceased grandfather by the right of
representation is subject to the debts and obligations of their deceased father
who died without any property whatsoever.lawphi1.net
3. That the trial court erred in condemning the defendants
to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma the sum of P1,500.
The only
facts to be considered in the determination of the legal questions raised in
this appeal are those set out in the appealed decision, which have been
established at the trial, namely:
In the year
1916, the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma lived maritally with Lorenzo M. Quitco,
while the latter was still single, of which relation, lasting until the year
1921, was born a daughter who is the other plaintiff Ana Quitco Ledesma. In
1921, it seems hat the relation between Socorro Ledesma and Lorenzo M. Quitco
came to an end, but the latter executed a deed (Exhibit A), acknowledging the
plaintiff Ana Quitco Ledesma as his natural daughter and on January 21, 1922,
he issued in favor of the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma a promissory note (Exhibit
C), of the following tenor:
P2,000. For
value received I promise to pay Miss Socorro Ledesma the sum of two thousand
pesos (P2,000). Philippine currency under the following terms: Two hundred and
fifty pesos (P250) to be paid on the first day of March 1922; another two
hundred and fifty pesos (P250)to be paid on the first day of November 1922; the remaining one
thousand and five hundred (P1,500) to be paid two years from the date of the
execution of this note. San Enrique, Occ. Negros, P. I., Jan. 21, 1922.
Subsequently, Lorenzo M. Quitco married the defendant Conchita
McLachlin, with whom he had four children, who are the other defendants. On
March 9, 1930, Lorenzo M. Quitco died (Exhibit 5), and, still later, that is,
on December 15, 1932, his father Eusebio Quitco also died, and as the latter
left real and personal properties upon his death, administration proceedings of
said properties were instituted in this court, the said case being known as the
"Intestate of the deceased Eusebio Quitco," civil case No. 6153 of
this court.
Upon the
institution of the intestate of the deceased Eusebio Quitco and the appointment
of the committee on claims and appraisal, the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma, on
August 26, 1935, filed before said committee the aforequoted promissory note
for payment, and the commissioners, upon receipt of said promissory note,
instead of passing upon it, elevated the same to this court en consulta
(Exhibit F), and as the Honorable Jose Lopez Vito, presiding over the First
Branch, returned said consulta and refrained from giving his opinion thereon
(Exhibit C), the aforesaid commissioners on claims and appraisal, alleging lack
of jurisdiction to pass upon the claim, denied he same (Exhibit H).
On November 14, 1933 (Exhibit I), the
court issued an order of declaration of heirs in the intestate of the deceased
Eusebio Quitco, and as Ana Quitco Ledesma was not included among the declared
heirs, Socorro Ledesma, as mother of Ana Quitco Ledesma, asked for the
reconsideration of said order, a petition which the court denied. From the
order denying the said petition no appeal was taken, and in lieu thereof there
was filed the complaint which gives rise to this case.
The first
question to be decided in this appeal, raised in the first assignment of
alleged error, is whether or not the action to recover the sum of P1,500,
representing the last installment for the payment of the promissory note
Exhibit C, has prescribed.
According to
the promissory note Exhibit C, executed by the deceased Lorenzo M. Quitco, on
January 21, 1922, the last installment of P1,500 should be paid two years from
the date of the execution of said promissory note, that is, on January 21,
1924. The complaint in the present case was filed on June 26, 1934, that is,
more than ten years after he expiration of the said period. The fact that the
plaintiff Socorro Ledesma filed her claim, on August 26, 1933, with the
committee on claims and appraisal appointed in the intestate of Eusebio Quitco,
does not suspend the running of the prescriptive period of the judicial action
for the recovery of said debt, because the claim for the unpaid balance of the
amount of the promissory note should no have been presented in the intestate of
Eusebio Quitco, the said deceased not being the one who executed the same, but
in the intestate of Lorenzo M. Quitco, which should have been instituted by the
said Socorro Ledesma as provided in section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
authorizing a creditor to institute said case through the appointment of an
administrator for the purpose of collecting his credit. More than ten years
having thus elapsed from the expiration of the period for the payment of said
debt of P1,500, the action for its recovery has prescribed under section 43,
No. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The first
assignment of alleged error is, therefore, well-founded.
As to the
second assignment of alleged error, consisting in that the trial court erred in
holding that the properties inherited by the defendants from their deceased
grandfather by representation are subject to the payment of debts and
obligations of their deceased father, who died without leaving any property,
while it is true that under the provisions of articles 924 to 927 of the Civil
Code, a children presents his father or mother who died before him in the
properties of his grandfather or grandmother, this right of representation does
not make the said child answerable for the obligations contracted by his
deceased father or mother, because, as may be seen from the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure referring to partition of inheritances, the inheritance
is received with the benefit of inventory, that is to say, the heirs only
answer with the properties received from their predecessor. The herein
defendants, as heirs of Eusebio Quitco, in representation of their father
Lorenzo M. Quitco, are not bound to pay the indebtedness of their said father
from whom they did not inherit anything.
The second
assignment of alleged error is also well-founded.
Being a mere
sequel of the first two assignments of alleged errors, the third assignment of
error is also well-founded.
For the
foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold: (1) That the
filing of a claim before the committee on claims and appraisal, appointed in
the intestate of the father, for a monetary obligation contracted by a son who
died before him, does not suspend the prescriptive period of the judicial
action for the recovery of said indebtedness; (2) that the claim for the
payment of an indebtedness contracted by a deceased person cannot be filed for
its collection before the committee on claims and appraisal, appointed in the
intestate of his father, and the propertiesinherited from the latter by the
children of said deceased do not answer for the payment of the indebtedness
contracted during the lifetime of said person.
Wherefore,
the appealed judgment is reversed, and the defendants are absolved from the
complaint, with the costs to the appellees. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ.,
concur.
