Ramirez v. Baltazar

#9 FILEMON RAMIREZ, MONICA RAMIREZ, and JOSE EGUARAS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs.
ARTEMIO BALTAZAR, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
DOCTRINE:
1. Transmittal of rights from moment of death; Heirs have no right to commence an action
arising out of the rights belonging to the deceased;
2. There is no question that the rights to succession are automatically transmitted to the
heirs from the moment of the death of the decedent (Art. 777, New Civil Code). While,
as a rule, the formal declaration or recognition to such successional rights needs judicial
confirmation, this Court has under special circumstances, protected these rights from
encroachments made or attempted before the judicial declaration
FACTS:
Victoriana Eguaras single, made and executed a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land,
owned by her in fee simple, as security for a loan of P2,170.00 in favor of the spouses Artemio
Baltazar and Susana Flores.
Upon the demise of the mortgagor, the mortgagees, as creditors of the deceased, on 16
September 1960 filed a petition for the intestate proceedings of her estate, in the RTC. In the
mortgages, as petitioners, alleged that Filemon Ramirez and Monica Ramirez are the heirs of
the deceased. Filemon Ramirez was appointed administrator of the estate; however, having
failed to qualify, on 16 January 1961, the court appointed Artemio Diawan, then a deputy clerk
of court, administrator of the estate who, in due time, qualified for the office.
On 19 April 1961, the mortgagees, Artemio Baltazar and Susana Flores, filed a complaint for
foreclosure of the aforesaid mortgage, against Artemio Diawan, in his capacity as administrator
of the estate in the RTC. The defendant-administrator was duly served with summons but he
failed to answer, thus he was declared in default. The case was referred to a commissioner to
receive the evidence for the plaintiffs, and the defendant-administrator, as deputy clerk of
court, acted as such hearing commissioner. 1äwphï1.ñët
On 16 August 1961, a decision was rendered decreeing the foreclosure of the mortgaged
property and the sale. The heirs, Filemon Ramirez, Monica Ramirez and Jose Eguaras, the first
two being the heirs named in the petition for intestate proceedings, filed a complaint
designated "For the Annulment of all Proceedings in said Civil Case No. SC-292 for the
Foreclosure of the Mortgage", against the spouses Artemio Baltazar and Susana Flores, and
Artemio Diawan, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Victoriana Eguaras, deceased,
and Silverio Talabis, in his capacity as deputy provincial sheriff of Laguna in the RTC.
The defendants spouses, Artemio Baltazar and Susana Flores, heirs of the deceased, filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue;
defendant Diawan likewise moved to dismiss on two grounds: that plaintiffs have no legal
capacity to sue and that the complaint states no cause of action. 1äJDBFJDDB
ISSUE:
WON the plaintiffs have a legal capacity to sue and therefore have no cause of action against
the defendant?
HELD:
Yes, the plaintiffs have a legal capacity to sue.
Under the circumstances and with the apparent disinterestedness of Filemon and Rolando to
qualify as administrator when appointed, there could not have been any connivance and/or
collusion between plaintiffs in this case and Artemio Diawan as administrator"; and that
plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue since their status as legal heirs of the deceased has yet to
be determined precisely in Special Proceeding No. SC-99, and until such status is so fixed by the
Court, they have no cause of action against defendants.
There is no question that the rights to succession are automatically transmitted to the heirs
from the moment of the death of the decedent. While, as a rule, the formal declaration or
recognition of such successional rights needs judicial confirmation, this Court has, under special
circumstances, protected these rights from encroachments made or attempted before the
judicial declaration. In Pascual vs. Pascual, it was ruled that although heirs have no legal
standing in court upon the commencement of testate or intestate proceedings, this rule admits
of an exception as "when the administrator fails or refuses to act in which event the heirs may
act in his place."
Inevitably, this case should fall under the exception, rather than the general rule that pending
proceedings for the settlement of the estate, the heirs have no right to commence an action
arising out of the rights belonging to the deceased.

Ramirez v. Baltazar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramirez v. Baltazar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramirez v. Baltazar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#9 FILEMON RAMIREZ, MONICA RAMIREZ, and JOSE EGUARAS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs.

ARTEMIO BALTAZAR, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Yes, the plaintiffs have a legal capacity to sue.

You might also like