SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 1

Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons

ALIPIO v. CA
September 29, 2000 | J. Mendoza

Petitioner(s): PURITA ALIPIO

Respondent(s): COURT OF APPEALS and ROMEO G. JARING, represented by his Attorney-In-Fact
RAMON G. JARING

Doctrine: We hold that a creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary
proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against the conjugal partnership and that the
proper remedy is for him to file a claim in the settlement of estate of the decedent. When petitioner's
husband died, their conjugal partnership was automatically dissolved and debts chargeable against it are
to be paid in the settlement of estate proceedings in accordance with Rule 73, Section 2.

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s): fishpond sublease aka utang mo, utang ko, utang natin til death do us part
FACTS: Sps. Alipio together with Sps. Manuel subleased a fishpond from Jaring. All 4 of them signed the
sublease contract. Despite demands, they failed to pay in full the second installment which prompted
Jaring to file a collection of money suit against the Alipios and Manuels. Purita Alipio moved to dismiss
the case against her and her husband because her husband died 10 months before the suit was filed.
She based her motion in Rule 3, Section 21 of the 1964 Rules of Court. RTC denied the motion and
subsequently ordered both spouses to pay Jaring. RTC explained that Purita is a party to the contract
hence the case cannot be dismissed against her and the death of her husband only resulted in his
exclusion in the case. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The SC reversed the RTC and CA
decision.

HELD: We hold that a creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding
for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against the conjugal partnership and that the proper
remedy is for him to file a claim in the settlement of estate of the decedent. When petitioner's husband
died, their conjugal partnership was automatically dissolved and debts chargeable against it are
to be paid in the settlement of estate proceedings in accordance with Rule 73, Section 2. The
reason for this is that upon the death of one spouse, the powers of administration of the surviving
spouse ceases and is passed to the administrator appointed by the court having jurisdiction over
the settlement of estate proceedings.

FACTS
Complaint/petition/etc filed: Collection for money against Sps. Alipio and Sps. Manuel

Insert agreed upon facts here. Include names of the parties as much as possible.
 Respondent Romeo Jaring 1 was the lessee of a 14.5 hectare fishpond in Hermosa, Bataan. The
lease was for a period of five years ending on September 12, 1990.
 June 19, 1987: Jaring subleased the fishpond, for the remaining period of his lease, to the
spouses Placido and Purita Alipio and the spouses Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel.
o 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.
o Each of the four sublessees signed the contract.
 The first installment was duly paid, but of the second installment, the sublessees only satisfied a
portion thereof, leaving an unpaid balance of P50,600.00. Despite due demand, the sublessees
failed to pay.
 October 13, 1989: Jaring sued the Alipio and Manuel spouses for the collection of the said
amount before the RTC. In the alternative, he prayed for the rescission of the sublease contract
should the defendants fail to pay the balance.
 Purita Alipio moved to dismiss the case on the ground that her husband, Placido Alipio, had
passed away on December 1, 1988. She based her action on Rule 3, Section 21 i of the 1964
Rules of Court.

EVB
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 2
Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons

 The RTC denied petitioner's motion to dismiss on the ground that Purita was herself a party to
the sublease contract, she could be impleaded in the suit together with the Manuel spouses and
that the death of her husband merely resulted in his exclusion from the case. Subsequently, the
RTC rendered judgment after trial, ordering petitioner and the Manuel spouses to pay private
respondent the unpaid balance of P50,600.00 plus attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00
and the costs of the suit.
 Purita appealed to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the trial court erred in denying her
motion to dismiss.
● CA dismissed the appeal, affirmed the RTC. The CA held that the rule that an action for recovery
of money, debt or interest thereon must be dismissed when the defendant dies before final
judgment in the regional trial court, does not apply where there are other defendants against
whom the action should be maintained. Purita’s MR was also denied by the CA.
● PRESENT PETITION: not mentioned in the case

ISSUES + HELD → SC: Reversed the RTC and CA decision.

ISSUE #1: W/N a creditor can sue the surviving spouse for the collection of a debt which is owed
by the conjugal partnership of gains- No, a creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in
an ordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against the conjugal partnership
and that the proper remedy is for him to file a claim in the settlement of estate of the decedent.
● This case falls outside of the ambit of Rule 3, Section 21 which deals with dismissals of collection
suits because of the death of the defendant during the pendency of the case and the subsequent
procedure to be undertaken by the plaintiff. Rule 3, Section 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure now provides that the case will be 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 Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. The issue
to be resolved is whether private respondent can, in the first place, file this case against
petitioner.
● Since Purita and her husband each signed the sublease contract binding themselves to pay the
amount of stipulated rent. Under the lawii, the Alipios' obligation (and also that of the Manuels) is
one which is chargeable against their conjugal partnership.
● When petitioner's husband died, their conjugal partnership was automatically dissolved
and debts chargeable against it are to be paid in the settlement of estate proceedings in
accordance with Rule 73, Section 2iii.
● Calma v. Tañedo: 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. Instead, the claim must be made in the proceedings for the liquidation and settlement of
the conjugal property. The reason for this is that upon the death of one spouse, the powers
of administration of the surviving spouse ceases and is passed to the administrator
appointed by the court having jurisdiction over the settlement of estate proceedings.
● Climaco v. Siy Uy which was relied upon by the CA is not applicable here because in that case
the suit was for damages for malicious prosecution. Thus, apart from the fact the claim was not
against any conjugal partnership, it was one which does not survive the death of defendant Uy.

ISSUE #2: whether the obligation is solidary or joint- joint

 For marriages governed by the rules of conjugal partnership of gains, an obligation
entered into by the husband and wife is chargeable against their conjugal partnership and
it is the partnership which is primarily bound for its repayment. Thus, when the spouses are
sued for the enforcement of an obligation entered into by 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 solidary liability, as between them, does not
apply. But even assuming the contrary to be true, the nature of the obligation involved in this
case, is not solidary but rather merely joint, making Imperial still inapplicable to this case.
 Another case relied upon by the CA is Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. David. The spouses in Imperial
jointly and severally executed an indemnity agreement which became the basis of a collection
suit filed against the wife after her husband had died. For this reason, the Court ruled that since

EVB
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 3
Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons

the spouses' liability was solidary, the surviving spouse could be independently sued in an
ordinary action for the enforcement of the entire obligation.
 However, the obligation in the present case is joint based from the Article 1207 of the Civil Code iv.
The obligation becomes solidary only if the sublessees refuse to vacate the premises after the
expiration of the term. But there was no such allegation in this case. Neither does petitioner
contend that it is the nature of lease that when there are more than two lessees or sublessees
their liability is solidary.
 Since the obligation of the Manuel and Alipio spouses is chargeable against their respective
conjugal partnerships, the unpaid balance of P50,600.00 should be divided into two so that each
couple is liable to pay the amount of P25,300.00.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Bienvenido Manuel and Remedios Manuel are
ordered to pay the amount of P25,300.00, the attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 and the costs
of the suit. The complaint against petitioner is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a claim by
private respondent in the proceedings for the settlement of estate of Placido Alipio for the collection of the
share of the Alipio spouses in the unpaid balance of the rent in the amount of P25,300.00.

EVB
i
When the action is for the recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies
before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not
be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment
obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for
prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.
ii
Art. 161(1) of the Civil Code, the conjugal partnership is liable for —
All debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, and those
contracted by the wife, also for the same purpose, in the cases where she may legally bind the partnership.
iii
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
proceedings of either.
iv
The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more
debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that
each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestations. There is solidary liability only
when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.