262 Phil.

618

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. NO. 82233, March 22, 1990

JOSE BARITUA AND EDGAR BITANCOR, PETITIONERS, VS.

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NICOLAS NACARIO AND
VICTORIA RONDA NACARIO, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION

SARMIENTO, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari assails as erroneous and contrary to existing relevant laws
and applicable jurisprudence the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated December 11, 1987
which reversed and set aside that of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXXII, at Pili, Camarines
Sur.[2] The challenged decision adjudged the petitioners liable to the private respondents in the
total amount of P20,505.00 and for cost.

The facts are as follows:

In the evening of November 7, 1979, the tricycle then being driven by Bienvenido Nacario
along the national highway at Barangay San Cayetano, in Baao, Camarines Sur, figured in an
accident with JB Bus No. 80 driven by petitioner Edgar Bitancor and owned and operated by
petitioner Jose Baritua.[3] As a result of that accident Bienvenido and his passenger died,[4] and
the tricycle was damaged.[5] No criminal case arising from the incident was ever instituted.[6]

Subsequently, on March 27, 1980, as a consequence of the extra-judicial settlement of the matter
negotiated by the petitioners and the bus’ insurer--Philippine First Insurance Company,
Incorporated (PFICI for brevity) -- Bienvenido Nacario’s widow, Alicia Baracena Vda. de
Nacario, received P18,500.00. In consideration of the amount she received, Alicia executed on
March 27, 1980 a “Release Of Claim” in favor of the petitioners and PFICI, releasing and
forever discharging them from all actions, claims, and demands arising from the accident which
resulted in her husband’s death and the damage to the tricycle which the deceased was then
driving. Alicia likewise executed an affidavit of desistance in which she formally manifested
her lack of interest in instituting any case, either civil or criminal, against the petitioners.[7]

On September 2, 1981, or about one year and ten months from the date of the accident on
November 7, 1979, the private respondents, who are the parents of Bienvenido Nacario, filed a
complaint for damages against the petitioners with the then Court of First Instance of Camarines
Sur.[8] In their complaint, the private respondents alleged that during the vigil for their deceased
son, the petitioners through their representatives promised them (the private respondents) that as
extra-judicial settlement, they shall be indemnified for the death of their son, for the funeral
expenses incurred by reason thereof, and for the damage to the tricycle the purchase price of
which they (the private respondents) only loaned to the victim. The petitioners, however,
reneged on their promise and instead negotiated and settled their obligations with the long-
estranged wife of their late son. The Nacario spouses prayed that the defendants, petitioners
herein, be ordered to indemnify them in the amount of P25,000.00 for the death of their son
Bienvenido, P10,000.00 for the damaged tricycle, P25,000.00 for compensatory and exemplary
damages, P5,000.00 for attorney’s fees, and for moral damages.[9]

After trial, the court a quo dismissed the complaint, holding that the payment by the defendants
(herein petitioners) to the widow and her child, who are the preferred heirs and successors-in-
interest of the deceased Bienvenido to the exclusion of his parents, the plaintiffs (herein private
respondents), extinguished any claim against the defendants (petitioners).[10]

The parents appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the judgment of the trial court.
The appellate court ruled that the release executed by Alicia Baracena Vda. de Nacario did not
discharge the liability of the petitioners because the case was instituted by the private
respondents in their own capacity and not as “heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns” of
Alicia; and Alicia could not have validly waived the damages being prayed for (by the private
respondents) since she was not the one who suffered these damages arising from the death of
their son. Furthermore, the appellate court said that the petitioners “failed to rebut the testimony
of the appellants (private respondents) that they were the ones who bought the tricycle that was
damaged in the incident. Appellants had the burden of proof of such fact, and they did establish
such fact in their testimony x x x.”[11] Anent the funeral expenses, “(T)he expenses for the
funeral were likewise shouldered by the appellants (the private respondents). This was never
contradicted by the appellees (petitioners). x x x. Payment (for these) were made by the
appellants, therefore, the reimbursement must accrue in their favor.”[12]

Consequently, the respondent appellate court ordered the petitioners to pay the private
respondents P10,000.00 for the damage of the tricycle, P5,000.00 for “complete” funeral
services, P450.00 for cemetery lot, P55.00 for oracion adulto, and P5,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
[13] The petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the appellate court’s decision[14] but their

motion was denied.[15] Hence, this petition.

The issue here is whether or not the respondent appellate court erred in holding that the
petitioners are still liable to pay the private respondents the aggregate amount of P20,505.00
despite the agreement of extrajudicial settlement between the petitioners and the victim’s
compulsory heirs.

The petition is meritorious.

Obligations are extinguished by various modes among them being by payment. Article 1231 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:

Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished:

(1) By payment or performance;

(2) By the loss of the thing due;
(3) By the condonation or remission of the debt;
 (4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor;
(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation.

(Emphasis ours.)

There is no denying that the petitioners had paid their obligation arising from the accident that
occurred on November 7, 1979. The only question now is whether or not Alicia, the surviving
spouse and the one who received the petitioners’ payment, is entitled to it.

Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Philippines enumerates the persons to whom payment to
extinguish an obligation should be made.

Art. 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has
been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.

Certainly there can be no question that Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors
in interest referred to in law as the persons authorized to receive payment. The Civil Code
states:

Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:

1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;

2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their
legitimate children and descendants;

3. The widow or widower;

4. Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;

5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.

Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1
and 2. Neither do they exclude one another.

(Emphasis ours.)

Article 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his
parents and ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of collateral relatives.

(Emphasis ours.)

It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without a
legitimate descendant. On the other hand, the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of
heirs. As it has been established that Bienvenido was married to Alicia and that they begot a
child, the private respondents are not successors-in-interest of Bienvenido; they are not
compulsory heirs. The petitioners therefore acted correctly in settling their obligation with
Alicia as the widow of Bienvenido and as the natural guardian of their lone child. This is so
even if Alicia had been estranged from Bienvenido. Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for
the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse.

Neither could the private respondents, as alleged creditors of Bienvenido, seek relief and
compensation from the petitioners. While it may be true that the private respondents loaned to
Bienvenido the purchase price of the damaged tricycle and shouldered the expenses for his
funeral, the said purchase price and expenses are but money claims against the estate of their
deceased son.[16] These money claims are not the liabilities of the petitioners who, as we have
said, had been released by the agreement of the extra-judicial settlement they concluded with
Alicia Baracena Vda. de Nacario, the victim’s widow and heir, as well as the natural guardian of
their child, her co-heir. As a matter of fact, she executed a “Release Of Claim” in favor of the
petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby REINSTATED. Costs
against the private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

[1]Chua, Segundino G., J., ponente, Ejercito, Bienvenido C., and Lapeña, Nicolas P., Jr., JJ.,
concurring.

[2] Judge Conchita Carpio-Rosales, presiding.

[3] Rollo, 46.

[4] Id.

[5] Id., 42.

[6] Id., 46.

[7] Id., 42.

[8] Id., 24.

[9] ld., 62-65.

[10] Id., 42-44.

[11] ld., 50.

[12] Id.

[13] Id., 45-51.

[14] Id., 52-58.

[15] Id., 61.

[16]Rule 87, Section 1, Rules of Court; see also, MORAN, 3 Comments on the Rules of Court,
479-480 (1980).