Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Section 1 Actions which may and which may not be brought against
executor or administrator.
money
debt
interest
Section 2
Executor or administrator may bring or defend actions
which survive.
Before distribution is made or before any residue is known, the heirs and devisees
have no cause of action against the executor or administrator for recovery of the
property left by the decedent.
CASE
WARNER BARNES v. LUZON SURETY (95 Phil 924)
Facts:
-Plaintiff, Warner, Barnes & Co., filed a complaint in the CFI against
defendant, Luzon Surety, for the recovery of P6000, plus costs and P1500 for
attorneys fees. The basis for the complaint was a bond in the sum of P6000
filed by Agueda Gonzaga as administratrix of the Interstate Estate of Aguedo
Gonzaga in Special Proceedings No. 452of the CFI of Negros Occidental.
-The complaint alleges that plaintiff had a duly approved claim against
the estate of P6,485.02; that administratrix violated theconditions of her
bond (i.e. failed to file inventory, failed to pay approved claim of plaintiff,
failed to render a true and just account of her administration); and that
defendant, as surety failed to pay plaintiff notwithstanding the latters
demand.
-CFI rendered a summary judgment sentencing the defendant to pay
plaintiff P6000, P900attys fees + costs.
Issue:
[1] W/N the lower court has jurisdiction to pass upon the liability of
defendant under the bond in question.
[2] W/N plaintiff should first file a claim against the estate of the
deceased administratrix, in conformity with section 6 of Rule 87 of the Rules
of Court.
Held:
[1] Defendant contends that the lower court had no jurisdiction to pass
upon its liability under the bond in question, because it is only the probate
court that can hold a surety accountable for any breach by the administratrix
of her duty.
-Court held that although the probate court has jurisdiction over the
forfeiture or enforcement of an administrators bond, the same matter may
be litigated in an ordinary civil action brought before the Court of First
Instance.
-Though nominally payable to the Republic of the Philippines, the bond
is expressly for the benefit of the heirs, legatees and creditors of the Estate
of the deceased Aguedo Gonzaga. There is no valid reason why a creditor
may not directly in his name enforce said bond in so far as he is concerned.
[2] Defendant alleged that plaintiff should have first filed a claim
against the Estate of the deceased administratrix Agueda Gonzaga in
conformity with Sec.6 of Rule 87 providing that where the obligation of the
decedent is joint and several with another debtor, the claim shall be filed
against the decedent as if he were the only debtor, without prejudice to the
right of the state to recover contribution from the other debtor.
-Apart from the fact that this defense was not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer and was therefore waived, it appears that
even as the present complaint was filed, there were no proceedings for the
administration of her estate. Where there are no proceedings for the
administration of the estate of the deceased administrator, the creditor may
enforce his bond against the surety which bound itself jointly and severally in
the case where the bond was filed.