SECOND DIVISION of the sublease contract should the defendants fail to pay the

balance.
G.R. No. 134100               September 29, 2000
Petitioner Purita Alipio moved to dismiss the case on the ground that
PURITA ALIPIO, petitioner,  her husband, Placido Alipio, had passed away on December 1,
vs. 1988.2 She based her action on Rule 3, §21 of the 1964 Rules of
COURT OF APPEALS and ROMEO G. JARING, represented by Court which then provided that "when the action is for recovery of
his Attorney-In-Fact RAMON G. JARING,respondents. money, debt or interest thereon, and the defendant dies before final
judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be
prosecuted in the manner especially provided in these rules." This
DECISION
provision has been amended so that now Rule 3, §20 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
MENDOZA, J.:
When the action is for the recovery of money arising from contract,
The question for decision in this case is whether a creditor can sue express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final
the surviving spouse for the collection of a debt which is owed by the judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of
conjugal partnership of gains, or whether such claim must be filed in such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to
proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the decedent. The trial continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained
court and the Court of Appeals ruled in the affirmative. We reverse. by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially
provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a
The facts are as follows: deceased person.

Respondent Romeo Jaring1 was the lessee of a 14.5 hectare The trial court denied petitioner's motion on the ground that since
fishpond in Barito, Mabuco, Hermosa, Bataan. The lease was for a petitioner was herself a party to the sublease contract, she could be
period of five years ending on September 12, 1990. On June 19, independently impleaded in the suit together with the Manuel
1987, he subleased the fishpond, for the remaining period of his spouses and that the death of her husband merely resulted in his
lease, to the spouses Placido and Purita Alipio and the spouses exclusion from the case.3 The Manuel spouses failed to file their
Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel. The stipulated amount of rent answer. For this reason, they were declared in default.
was ₱485,600.00, payable in two installments of ₱300,000.00 and
₱185,600.00, with the second installment falling due on June 30, On February 26, 1991, the lower court rendered judgment after trial,
1989. Each of the four sublessees signed the contract. ordering petitioner and the Manuel spouses to pay private
respondent the unpaid balance of ₱50,600.00 plus attorney's fees in
The first installment was duly paid, but of the second installment, the the amount of ₱10,000.00 and the costs of the suit.
sublessees only satisfied a portion thereof, leaving an unpaid
balance of ₱50,600.00. Despite due demand, the sublessees failed Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the
to comply with their obligation, so that, on October 13, 1989, private trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss. In its
respondent sued the Alipio and Manuel spouses for the collection of decision4 rendered on July 10, 1997, the appellate court dismissed
the said amount before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, her appeal. It held:
Dinalupihan, Bataan. In the alternative, he prayed for the rescission
The rule that an action for recovery of money, debt or interest Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied on
thereon must be dismissed when the defendant dies before final June 4, 1998.6 Hence this petition based on the following assignment
judgment in the regional trial court, does not apply where there are of errors:
other defendants against whom the action should be maintained.
This is the teaching of Climaco v. Siy Uy, wherein the Supreme A. THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED
Court held: REVERSIBLE ERROR IN APPLYING CLIMACO v. SIY UY,
19 SCRA 858, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE
Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it is clear that Climaco had a PETITIONER WAS NOT SEEKING THE DISMISSAL OF
cause of action against the persons named as defendants therein. It THE CASE AGAINST REMAINING DEFENDANTS BUT
was, however, a cause of action for the recovery of damages, that is, ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM FOR PAYMENT
a sum of money, and the corresponding action is, unfortunately, one AGAINST HER AND HER HUSBAND WHICH SHOULD BE
that does not survive upon the death of the defendant, in accordance PROSECUTED AS A MONEY CLAIM.
with the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
B. THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED
x x x           x x x          x x x REVERSIBLE ERROR IN APPLYING IMPERIAL
INSURANCE INC. v. DAVID, 133 SCRA 317, WHICH IS
However, the deceased Siy Uy was not the only defendant, Manuel NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE SPOUSES IN THIS
Co was also named defendant in the complaint. Obviously, therefore, CASE DID NOT BIND THEMSELVES JOINTLY AND
the order appealed from is erroneous insofar as it dismissed the SEVERALLY IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT JARING.7
case against Co. (Underlining added)
The petition is meritorious. We hold that a creditor cannot sue the
Moreover, it is noted that all the defendants, including the deceased, surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding for the
were signatories to the contract of sub-lease. The remaining collection of a sum of money chargeable against the conjugal
defendants cannot avoid the action by claiming that the death of one partnership and that the proper remedy is for him to file a claim in the
of the parties to the contract has totally extinguished their obligation settlement of estate of the decedent.
as held in Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. David:
First. Petitioner's husband died on December 1, 1988, more than ten
We find no merit in this appeal. Under the law and well settled months before private respondent filed the collection suit in the trial
jurisprudence, when the obligation is a solidary one, the creditor may court on October 13, 1989. This case thus falls outside of the ambit
bring his action in toto against any of the debtors obligated in of Rule 3, §21 which deals with dismissals of collection suits
solidum. Thus, if husband and wife bound themselves jointly and because of the death of the defendant during the pendency of the
severally, in case of his death, her liability is independent of and case and the subsequent procedure to be undertaken by the
separate from her husband's; she may be sued for the whole debt plaintiff, i.e., the filing of claim in the proceeding for the settlement of
and it would be error to hold that the claim against her as well as the the decedent's estate. As already noted, Rule 3, §20 of the 1997
claim against her husband should be made in the decedent's estate. Rules of Civil Procedure now provides that the case will be allowed
(Agcaoili vs. Vda. de Agcaoili, 90 Phil. 97).5 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 him of any property belonging to the partnership prior to the
petitioner. liquidation of the mass of conjugal partnership property is void. 12

Petitioner and her late husband, together with the Manuel spouses, The ruling in Calma v. Tañedo was reaffirmed in the recent case
signed the sublease contract binding themselves to pay the amount of Ventura v. Militante.13 In that case, the surviving wife was sued in
of stipulated rent. Under the law, the Alipios' obligation (and also that an amended complaint for a sum of money based on an obligation
of the Manuels) is one which is chargeable against their conjugal allegedly contracted by her and her late husband. The defendant,
partnership. Under Art. 161(1) of the Civil Code, the conjugal who had earlier moved to dismiss the case, opposed the admission
partnership is liable for ¾ of the amended complaint on the ground that the death of her
husband terminated their conjugal partnership and that the plaintiff's
All debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of claim, which was chargeable against the partnership, should be
the conjugal partnership, and those contracted by the wife, also for made in the proceedings for the settlement of his estate. The trial
the same purpose, in the cases where she may legally bind the court nevertheless admitted the complaint and ruled, as the Court of
partnership.8 Appeals did in this case, that since the defendant was also a party to
the obligation, the death of her husband did not preclude the plaintiff
from filing an ordinary collection suit against her. On appeal, the
When petitioner's husband died, their conjugal partnership was
Court reversed, holding that ¾
automatically dissolved9 and debts chargeable against it are to be
paid in the settlement of estate proceedings in accordance with Rule
73, §2 which states: as correctly argued by petitioner, the conjugal partnership terminates
upon the death of either spouse. . . . Where a complaint is brought
against the surviving spouse for the recovery of an indebtedness
Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage. ¾ When the
chargeable against said conjugal [partnership], any judgment
marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the
obtained thereby is void. The proper action should be in the form of a
community property shall be inventoried, administered, and
claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings of the
liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate
deceased spouse.
proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the
conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate
proceedings of either. In many cases as in the instant one, even after the death of one of
the spouses, there is no liquidation of the conjugal partnership. This
does not mean, however, that the conjugal partnership continues.
As held in Calma v. Tañedo,10 after the death of either of the
And private respondent cannot be said to have no remedy. Under
spouses, no complaint for the collection of indebtedness chargeable
Sec. 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court, he may apply in court
against the conjugal partnership can be brought against the surviving
for letters of administration in his capacity as a principal creditor of
spouse. Instead, the claim must be made in the proceedings for the
the deceased . . . if after thirty (30) days from his death, petitioner
liquidation and settlement of the conjugal property. The reason for
failed to apply for administration or request that administration be
this is that upon the death of one spouse, the powers of
granted to some other person.14
administration of the surviving spouse ceases and is passed to the
administrator appointed by the court having jurisdiction over the
settlement of estate proceedings.11Indeed, the surviving spouse is The cases relied upon by the Court of Appeals in support of its
not even a de facto administrator such that conveyances made by ruling, namely, Climaco v. Siy Uy15 and Imperial Insurance, Inc. v.
David,16 are based on different sets of facts. In Climaco, the
defendants, Carlos Siy Uy and Manuel Co, were sued for damages Second. The trial court ordered petitioner and the Manuel spouses
for malicious prosecution. Thus, apart from the fact the claim was not to pay private respondent the unpaid balance of the agreed rent in
against any conjugal partnership, it was one which does not survive the amount of ₱50,600.00 without specifying whether the amount is
the death of defendant Uy, which merely resulted in the dismissal of to be paid by them jointly or solidarily. In connection with this, Art.
the case as to him but not as to the remaining defendant Manuel Co. 1207 of the Civil Code provides:

With regard to the case of Imperial, the spouses therein jointly and The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors
severally executed an indemnity agreement which became the basis in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the
of a collection suit filed against the wife after her husband had died. former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound
For this reason, the Court ruled that since the spouses' liability was to render, entire compliance with the prestations. There is a solidary
solidary, the surviving spouse could be independently sued in an liability only when the obligation expressly so estates, or when the
ordinary action for the enforcement of the entire obligation. law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.

It must be noted that for marriages governed by the rules of conjugal Indeed, if from the law or the nature or the wording of the obligation
partnership of gains, an obligation entered into by the husband and the contrary does not appear, an obligation is presumed to be only
wife is chargeable against their conjugal partnership and it is the joint, i.e., the debt is divided into as many equal shares as there are
partnership which is primarily bound for its repayment.17 Thus, when debtors, each debt being considered distinct from one another. 20
the spouses are sued for the enforcement of an obligation entered
into by them, they are being impleaded in their capacity as Private respondent does not cite any provision of law which provides
representatives of the conjugal partnership and not as independent that when there are two or more lessees, or in this case, sublessees,
debtors such that the concept of joint or solidary liability, as between the latter's obligation to pay the rent is solidary. To be sure, should
them, does not apply. But even assuming the contrary to be true, the the lessees or sublessees refuse to vacate the leased property after
nature of the obligation involved in this case, as will be discussed the expiration of the lease period and despite due demands by the
later, is not solidary but rather merely joint, making Imperial still lessor, they can be held jointly and severally liable to pay for the use
inapplicable to this case. of the property. The basis of their solidary liability is not the contract
of lease or sublease but the fact that they have become joint
From the foregoing, it is clear that private respondent cannot tortfeasors.21 In the case at bar, there is no allegation that the
maintain the present suit against petitioner.1âwphi1 Rather, his sublessees refused to vacate the fishpond after the expiration of the
remedy is to file a claim against the Alipios in the proceeding for the term of the sublease. Indeed, the unpaid balance sought to be
settlement of the estate of petitioner's husband or, if none has been collected by private respondent in his collection suit became due on
commenced, he can file a petition either for the issuance of letters of June 30, 1989, long before the sublease expired on September 12,
administration18 or for the allowance of will,19 depending on whether 1990.
petitioner's husband died intestate or testate. Private respondent
cannot short-circuit this procedure by lumping his claim against the Neither does petitioner contend that it is the nature of lease that
Alipios with those against the Manuels considering that, aside from when there are more than two lessees or sublessees their liability is
petitioner's lack of authority to represent their conjugal estate, the solidary. On the other hand, the pertinent portion of the contract
inventory of the Alipios' conjugal property is necessary before any involved in this case reads:22
claim chargeable against it can be paid. Needless to say, such
power exclusively pertains to the court having jurisdiction over the
settlement of the decedent's estate and not to any other court.
2. That the total lease rental for the sub-leased fishpond for the
entire period of three (3) years and two (2) months is FOUR
HUNDRED EIGHT-FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED (₱485,600.00)
PESOS, including all the improvements, prawns, milkfishes, crabs
and related species thereon as well all fishing equipment,
paraphernalia and accessories. The said amount shall be paid to the
Sub-Lessor by the Sub-Lessees in the following manner, to wit:

A. Three hundred thousand (₱300,000.00) Pesos upon signing this

B. One Hundred Eight-Five Thousand Six-Hundred (₱185,6000.00)

Clearly, the liability of the sublessees is merely joint. Since the

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Bienvenido Manuel and

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,