(1) Surviving spouse is not liable. The

Alipio v. CA conjugal partnership of gains is liable. It is
clear that Climaco had a cause of action
against the persons named as defendants
G.R. No. 134100, 29 September 2000 therein. It was, however, a cause of action
for the recovery of damages, that is, a
FACTS: sum of money and the corresponding
action is, unfortunately, one that does not
(1) Respondent Romeo Jaring was the survive upon the death of the defendant,
lessee of a 14.5 hectare fishpond in in accordance with the provisions of
Barito, Mabuco, Hermosa, Bataan. The Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. 
lease was for a period of five years ending As held in Calma v. Tañedo, after the
on September 12, 1990. On June 19, death of either of the spouses, no
1987, he subleased the fishpond, for the complaint about the collection of
remaining period of his lease, to the indebtedness chargeable against the
spouses Placido and Purita Alipio and the conjugal partnership
Manuel Spouses.
(2) The sublessees only satisfied a portion can be brought against the surviving
thereof, leaving an unpaid balance of spouse. Instead, the claim must be made
P50,600.00. in the proceedings for the liquidation and
settlement of the conjugal property. The
(3) Purita Alipio moved to dismiss the reason for this is that upon the death of
case on the ground that her husband, one spouse, the powers of administration
Placido Alipio, had passed away on of the surviving spouse ceases and is
December 1, 1988. passed to the administrator appointed by
RTC: Surviving spouse should pay. The the court having jurisdiction over the
trial court denied petitioner’s motion on settlement of estate proceedings. Indeed,
the ground that since petitioner was the surviving spouse is not even a de
herself a party to the sublease contract, facto administrator such that conveyances
she could be independently impleaded in made by him of any property belonging to
the suit together with the Manuel spouses the partnership prior to the liquidation of
and that the death of her husband merely the mass of conjugal partnership property
resulted in his exclusion from the case. is void.  the inventory of the Alipios’
conjugal property is necessary before any
claim chargeable against it can be paid.
CA: Surviving spouse should pay. It is
Needless to say, such power exclusively
noted that all the defendants, including
pertains to the court having jurisdiction
the deceased, were signatories to the
over the settlement of the decedent’s
contract of sub-lease. The remaining
estate and not to any other court.
defendants cannot avoid the action by
claiming that the death of one of the
parties to the contract has totally (2) The obligation is joint. Indeed, if from
extinguished their obligation. the law or the nature or the wording of the
obligation the contrary does not appear,
an obligation is presumed to be only joint,
 ISSUE:
i.e., the debt is divided into as many equal
shares as there are debtors, each debt
 (1) Whether a creditor can sue the being considered distinct from one
surviving spouse for the collection of a another. Clearly, the liability of the
debt which is owed by the conjugal sublessees is merely joint. Since the
partnership of gains, or obligation of the Manuel and Alipio
spouses is chargeable against their
(2) Whether such claim must be filed in respective conjugal partnerships, the
proceedings for the settlement of the unpaid balance of P50,600.00 should be
estate of the decedent. divided into two so that each couple is
liable to pay the amount of P25,300.00.
RULING:
 RULING:
Domingo vs. No, a writ of execution is not the
proper procedure for the payment of

Garlitos debts and expenses of

administration. The proper
procedure is for the court to order
Melecio R. Domingo, as the sale of personal estate or the
Commissioner of Internal sale or mortgage of real property of
Revenue vs. Hon. Lorenzo C. the deceased and all debts or
Garlitos, in his capacity as Judge expenses of administrator and with
of the Court of First Instance of the written notice to all the heirs,
Leyte, and Simeona K. Price, as legatees and devisees residing in
Administratrix of the Intestate the Philippines. And when sale or
Estate of the late Walter Scott mortgage of real estate is to be
Price made, the regulations contained in
G.R. No. L-18994 June 29, 1963 Rule 90, section 7, of the Rules of
Court should be complied with.
Execution may issue only where the
FACTS:
devisees, legatees or heirs have
In special proceedings No. 14
entered into possession of their
entitled “In the matter of the Intestate
respective portions in the estate prior
Estate of the Late Walter Scott
to settlement and payment of the
Price”, the Court of First Instance of
debts and expenses of
Leyte ordered the payment of the
administration and it is later
estate and inheritance taxes,
ascertained that there are such
charges and penalties, amounting to
debts and expenses to be paid, in
P40,058.55 by the estate. It became
which case “the court having
final and executory so the fiscal
jurisdiction of the estate may, by
applied for the execution of the
order for that purpose, after hearing,
judgment which was denied on the
settle the amount of their several
ground that the Government was
liabilities, and order how much and
indebted to the estate in the amount
in what manner each person shall
of P262,200 which had been
contribute, and may issue execution
appropriated for the purposes of
if circumstances require”
R.A. No. 2700.
Furthermore, the Court ordered that
the payment of the claim of the The Court allowed the compensation
Collector of Internal Revenue be since the Government had not
deferred until the Government shall denied it owed the estate’s claim.  It
have paid its accounts to the considered that both the claim of the
administratrix herein amounting to Government for inheritance taxes
P262,200.00 and the claim of the intestate for
services rendered had already
become overdue and demandable
ISSUE:
as well as fully liquidated. In fact, a
Are compensation and writ of
law (Republic Act No. 2700) has
execution the proper procedure for
appropriated a  fund for its payment.
the payment of debts and expenses
of administration?
Manuel Barredo vs Court of Appeals, GR No.
L-17863, November 28, 1962
(Special Proceedings – Claims against estate;
Rule 86, Sec. 2: Statute of Non-Claims) The one-month period specified in this section is
the time granted claimants, and the same is to
Facts: On 23 and 30 August and 6 September begin from the order authorizing the filing of the
1945, a notice to creditors requiring them their claims. It does not mean that the extension of
claims with the clerk of court previously fixed one month starts from the expiration of the
within 6 months reckoned from the date of its original period fixed by the court for the
first publication and expiring February 23, 1946, presentation of claims. (Paulin vs. Aquino, L-
was published by the administrator of the 11267, March 20, 1958)
intestate estate of Charles McDonough.
However, the probate court’s discretion in
On 22 October 1947, the heirs of Fausto Barredo allowing a claim after the regular period for
filed their belated claim to collect the face value filing claims but before entry of an order of
of a promissory note for P20,000.00 plus interest distribution presupposes not only claim for
and attorney’s fees against the said estate. The apparent merit but also that cause existed to
promissory note was secured by a mortgage in justify the tardiness in filing the claim. Here,
favor of Fausto Barredo over the leasehold rights petitioners alleged as excuse for their tardiness
of McDnough The original lease, the extension the recent recovery of the papers of the late
of its term, and the mortgage were all annotated Fausto Barredo from the possession of his
at the back of the certificate of title of the land. lawyer who is now deceased. This ground
A deed of extrajudicial partition of the secured insufficient, due to the availability, and
credit was also made by the heirs and was knowledge by the petitioners, of the annotation
annotated at the back of the aforesaid title. at the back of the certificate of title of the
mortgage embodying the instant claim, (as well
The claim was opposed by the administrator. as the payment of P20,000.00 made by the
The lower court allowed it after hearing, but was Japanese military authorities.)
reversed by the Court of Appeals.
The order of the trial court allowing the late
In the case at bar, petitioner contends that the claim without justification, because under
one month period referred to in Section 2 of Section 2, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, said
Rule 87 of Rules of Court is to be counted from court has no authority to admit a belated claim
and after the expiration of the 6 month period for no cause or for an insufficient cause.
fixed in the published notice to claims. The
respondent administrator argues that the one- G. R. No. 147561 June 22,
month period for filing late claims should be 2006STRONGHOLD INSURANCE
counted from the expiration of the regular 6- COMPANY, INC., vs. REPUBLIC-ASAHI
month period. GLASS CORPORATION
H. Facts: Republic-Asahi entered with Jose
Section 2, Rule 87 provides: Santos Jr., proprietor of JDS Construction, for
the construction ofroadways and drainage
SEC. 2. Time within which claims shall be filed. system, which was supposed to be completed
— In the notice provided in section 1, the court within a period of 240 days. Inorder to guarantee
shall state the time for the filing of claims the faithful and satisfactory performance of its
against the estate, which shall not be more than undertakings’ JDS post a performancebond of
twelve nor less than six months after the date of P795,000.00 with Petitioner Stronghold
the first publication of the notice. However, at Insurance Co., Inc. (SICI). Respondent
any time before an order of distribution is called theattention of JDS to the alleged
entered, on application of a creditor who has alarmingly slow pace of the construction, which
failed to file his claim within the time previously resulted in the fear that theconstruction will not
limited, the court may, for cause shown and on be finished within the stipulated period.
such terms as are equitable, allow such claim to However, such was unheeded by
be filed within a time not exceeding one month. JDS.Dissatisfied with the progress of the work,
Republic-Asahi extrajudicially rescinded the
Issue: WON the tardy claim will be allowed. contract, but suchrescission shall not be
construed as a waiver of respondent’s right to
Held: No. The claim was filed outside of the recover damages from JDS andlatter’s sureties.
period previously fixed with an insufficient Thus, because of the failure to comply with the
cause. A tardy claim may be allowed, at the provisions of the contract, it had to hireanother
discretion of the court, upon showing of cause contractor to finish the project, for which it
for failure to present said claim on time. incurred additional expenses. Thereafter,
respondentsent a letter to petitioner SICI filing under theperformance bond. Consequently,
its claim under the bond. Respondent then sent petitioner as surety cannot use his death
again another letterreiterating the same demand to escape its monetaryobligation under its
but was unheeded. This prompted respondent to performance bond.
file a complaint againstJDS and SICI for
payment representing additional expenses and BUAN VS LAYA
damages. According to the Sheriff’sReturn,  FACTS: A contingent claim for
summons were duly served on SICI, however,
Jose Santos Jr. died the previous year, and P50,000 was filed by Sylvia Laya
JDSwas no longer at its address, and such against the intestate estate of the
whereabouts were unknown. SICI filed its
deceased Florenica and Rizalina
answer, alleging that therespondent’s money
claims have been extinguished by the death of Buan. The contingent claim was
Santos. Even if this were not thecase, it had been based on the fact that a Philippine
released from liability under the performance
bond because there was no liquidation,with the Rabbit Bus, owned and operated by
active participation and involvement, pursuant to the spouses Buan, collided with a
procedural due process, of herein surety private car resulting to the death of
andSantos, hence there was no ascertainment of
the corresponding liabilities of Santos and SICI Juan Laya, the father of Sylvia Laya.
under theperformance bond. Thus, such The driver of the bus was charged
liquidation would be impossible since
Santos is already dead. Thecomplaint
with homicide and serious physical
against JDS and SICI was dismissed on the injuries through reckless imprudence
ground that the claim against JDS did not and was sentenced therefor. The
survivethe death of Santos. On Motion for
Reconsideration, the dismissal of the case was heirs of Juan Laya had reserved the
reconsidered and thecase was reinstated, right to file a separate civil action,
however, the case against Santos remains and they did so. Administrators of
undisturbed. On appeal, the Court ofAppeals
ruled that SICI’s obligation under the surety the estate opposed the contingent
agreement was not extinguished by the death claim, arguing that the same could
ofSantos. Consequently Respondent could still
go after SICI for the bond. Hence, this
not be allowed because it has not
petition.Issue: Whether or not the claims against been filed before the death of the
SICI was extinguished from the death of spouses. The CFI of Tarlac admitted
SantosHeld: As a general rule, the death of either
the creditor or the debtor does not extinguish the the claim, but denied that a portion
obligation.Obligations are transmissible to the of the estate be set aside to answer
heirs, except when the transmission is prevented
for the claim. Counsel for
by the law, thestipulations of the parties, or the
nature of the obligation. Only obligations that administrator then moved to set
are personal10 or areidentified with the persons aside the order, but before they
themselves are extinguished by death.Section 5
of Rule 8612 of the Rules of Court expressly could do so, the civil action
allows the prosecution of money claims instituted in Manila was declared
arisingfrom a contract against the estate premature because the criminal
of a deceased debtor. Evidently, those
claims are not actuallyextinguished. What is conviction is not yet final, and
extinguished is only the obligee’s action or suit ordered plaintiffs therein to file an
filed before the court, which is notthen acting as
a probate court.In the present case, whatever
amended Page 60 liability based
monetary liabilities or obligations Santos had solely thereon. As opined by Justice
under his contracts withrespondent were not Regalado, in this regard, "the death
intransmissible by their nature, by stipulation, or
by provision of law. Hence, hisdeath did not of the accused prior to final
result in the extinguishment of those obligations judgment terminates his criminal
or liabilities, which merely passed on to liability and only the civil liability
hisestate. Death is not a defense that he or his
estate can set up to wipe out the obligations directly arising from and based
solely on the offense committed, i.e., other Encumbrances of Property of
civil liability ex delicto in decede
sensostrictiore."I SSUE
Whether or not the contingent claim
may be admitted RULING The Court
ruled in the affirmative. A contingent
claim is one that, by its nature, is
dependent upon the happening of
an uncertain event. it may or may
not develop into a valid claim,
depending upon that uncertain
event. Whether or not the heirs of
the deceased, Juan C. Laya, would
succeed in the action brought in
Manila against the administrators of
the estate of the deceased spouses
Florencio Buan and Rizalina P. Buan,
is the uncertain event or contingency
upon which the validity of the claim
presented in the administration
proceedings depends. While the
contingent event had not yet
happened, Sylvia has no claim upon
the intestate estate, for such claim
would only arise after the event
happened. As such, the contingent
claim may not be dismissed.
Contingent claims follow the result
of the action, and as such, the fact
that the case is temporarily
dismissed may not terminate the
claim, as only the final results of the
action could do that. The rules
provide that a contingent claim is to
be presented in the administration
proceedings in the same manner as
any ordinary claim, and that when
the contingency arises which
converts the contingent claim into a
valid claim, the court should then be
informed that the claim had already
matured. 89 Sales, Mortgages, and