View full case

PURITA ALIPIO v. CA

FACTS:

Romeo Jaring, the respondent, leased a fishpond to the spouses Placido and Purita Alipio and the spouses Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel. The sublease contract required the payment of P485,600.00 in two installments. The first installment was paid, but the sublessees failed to fully pay the second installment, leaving a balance of P50,600.00. Respondent filed a collection suit against the Alipio and Manuel spouses. Purita Alipio, the petitioner, moved to dismiss the case on the ground that her husband had died. The trial court denied the motion and held that she can be independently impleaded in the suit. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering petitioner and the Manuel spouses to pay the unpaid balance. Petitioner appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal, stating that the action can proceed against the remaining defendants. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a creditor can sue the surviving spouse in an ordinary proceeding for the collection of a debt owed by the conjugal partnership of gains or whether the claim must be filed in proceedings for the settlement of the decedent's estate.

  2. Whether or not private respondent can file a case against petitioner.

  3. Whether the claim should be made in the proceedings for the settlement of the deceased spouse's estate.

  4. Whether the private respondent can maintain the present suit against the petitioner.

  5. Whether the liability for the unpaid balance of the agreed rent is joint or solidary.

RULING:

  1. Not included in the summarization)

  2. Private respondent cannot file a case against petitioner after the death of petitioner's spouse. The claim must be made in the proceedings for the liquidation and settlement of the conjugal property.

  3. The conjugal partnership terminates upon the death of either spouse. Any judgment obtained against the surviving spouse for the recovery of an indebtedness chargeable against the conjugal partnership is void. The proper action should be in the form of a claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse.

  4. The private respondent cannot maintain the present suit against the petitioner. The proper remedy is for the private respondent to file a claim against the Alipio spouses in the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of petitioner's husband or to file a petition for the issuance of letters of administration or for the allowance of the will, depending on the circumstances.

  5. The liability for the unpaid balance of the agreed rent is joint. There is no provision of law that states that when there are two or more lessees or sublessees, their obligation to pay rent is solidary. In this case, the liability is joint because the debt is divided into as many equal shares as there are debtors.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The conjugal partnership terminates upon the death of either spouse.

  • Claims against the conjugal partnership must be made in the proceedings for the liquidation and settlement of the conjugal property.

  • Any judgment obtained against the surviving spouse for the recovery of an indebtedness chargeable against the conjugal partnership is void.

  • The proper action should be in the form of a claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse.

  • When a claimant seeks to collect an obligation chargeable against the conjugal partnership, the claimant must file a claim in the proceeding for the settlement of the decedent's estate and cannot bypass this process.

  • Solidary liability exists when the obligation expressly states so, when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity, or when the debtors become joint tortfeasors.

  • In the absence of an express provision or indication to the contrary, an obligation is presumed to be joint, where the debt is divided into equal shares among the debtors.