Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FIRSTDIVISION
[G.R.No.63145.October5,1999]
SULPICIAVENTURA,petitioner,vs.HON.FRANCISJ.MILITANTE,inHisCapacity
asPresidingJudge,RegionalTrialCourt,7thJudicialDistrict,BranchXII,Cebu
CityandJOHNUY,respondents.
DECISION
PUNO,J.:
This is a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Order[1] of public respondent directing her to file an
AnswertotheComplaintforaSumofMoneywithDamagesfiledbyprivaterespondentafterdenyingher
MotiontoDismiss.[2]
Thereisnodisputeastothefollowingrelevantfacts:
PrivaterespondentfiledaComplaintforaSumofMoneyandDamagesagainstpetitionerwhichreads:
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES
COURTOFFIRSTINSTANCEOFCEBU
14thJudicialDistrict
BRANCH____
MR.JOHNUY,ProprietorofCebu
TextarAutoSupply,
Plaintiff,
versusCIVILCASENO.R21968
For:SUMOFMONEYANDDAMAGES
ESTATEOFCARLOSNGOas
representedbysurviving
spouseMs.SULPICIAVENTURA,
Defendant.
Oo///
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF,thrucounsel,untothisHonorableCourt,mostrespectfullystatesthat:
1.Heisoflegalage,FilipinoandproprietorofCebuTextarAutoSupplywhosepostaladdressisat177Leon
KilatSt.,CebuCity,whilethedefendantisanestateofCarlosNgoasrepresentedbysurvivingspouseMs.
SulpiciaVenturawithresidenceandpostaladdressatBack[sic]ofChongHuaHospital,CebuCitywhere
summonsandotherprocessesoftheCourtcouldbeeffected
2.DuringthelifetimeofCarlosNgohewasindebtedwiththeplaintiffintheamountofP48,889.70as
evidencedbytheheretoattachedstatementmarkedasAnnexesAandA1whichaccountwasobtainedby
himforthebenefitofhisfamily
3.SaidobligationisalreadydueanddemandableandthedefendantthruMs.Venturawhoisostensibly
takingcareoftheproperties/estateofdeceasedCarlosNgo,refused,failedandneglectedandstillcontinues
torefuse,failandneglecttopaydespiterepeateddemands
4.Asaconsequenceoftherefusaltopaytheplaintiffwascompelledtoretaintheservicesofcounselwith
whomhecontractedtopayP10,000.00asattorney'sfees.Uponinstitutionofthiscomplaint,hehasfurther
incurredinitiallitigationexpendituresinthesumofP4,000.00.
WHEREFORE,thisHonorableCourtismostrespectfullyprayedtorenderjudgmentfortheplaintiffby
1.OrderingthedefendanttopaytheplaintiffthesumofP48,889.70plusinterestuntiltheobligationisfully
paid
2.OrderingthedefendanttopaytheplaintifftheamountofP10,000.00asattorney'sfeesplusP4,000.00as
reimbursementoftheinitiallitigationexpenditures.
FURTHERplaintiffpraysforsuchotherrelieforremedyinaccordancewithlaw,justiceandequity.
CebuCity,Philippines,March29,1982.
xxx[3]
PetitionermovedtodismisstheforegoingcomplaintonthegroundthattheestateofCarlosNgohasno
legalpersonality,thesamebeingneitheranaturalnorlegalpersonincontemplationoflaw[4]
InhisOppositiontoMotiontoDismiss,[5]petitionerinsistedthatsincethemoneyclaimsubjectofthis
caseactuallyrepresentsthecostsofautomotivespareparts/replacementscontractedbydeceasedCarlosNgo
during his lifetime for the benefit/business of the family x x x the conjugal partnership x x x shall be
accountable for the payment thereof.[6] Subsequently, private respondent's counsel manifested that he is
poised to amend the complaint in order to state the correct party defendant that he intends to sue in this
case[7].Thepublicrespondentgaveprivaterespondentfifteen(15)daystomaketheamendment.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[8] of the order of public respondent permitting private
respondenttoamendhiscomplaint.First,shearguedthattheactioninstitutedbytheprivaterespondentto
recoverP48,889.70,representingtheunpaidpriceoftheautomotivesparepartspurchasedbyherdeceased
husbandduringhislifetime,isamoneyclaimwhich,underSection21,Rule3oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,
doesnotsurvive,thesamehavingbeenfiledafterCarlosNgohadalreadydied.Second,sheclaimedthatthe
publicrespondentneveracquiredjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthecasewhich,beinganactionto
recoverasumofmoneyfromadeceasedperson,mayonlybeheardbyaprobatecourt.
Private respondent opposed the foregoing motion.[9] He insisted that petitioner, being the wife of the
deceasedCarlosNgo,isliabletopaytheobligationwhichbenefitedtheirfamily.
PublicrespondentissuedanOrdergivingprivaterespondenttwentyfour(24)hourstofilehisamended
complaint so that the Court can determine for itself whether there is really a cause of action against the
defendant who would be substituted to the Estate of Carlos Ngo, considering that it would seem from the
arguments of counsel for plaintiff x x x that the debt incurred by the deceased Carlong [sic] Ngo was in
behalfoftheconjugalpartnershipsothatthewifeofCarlosNgomightbeliabletopaytheobligation.[10]
PrivaterespondentthenfiledhisAmendedComplaint[11]withthenewallegationsunderscoredtherein
asfollows:
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES
COURTOFFIRSTINSTANCEOFCEBU
14thJudicialDistrict
BRANCHXII
MR.JOHNUY,ProprietorofCebu
TextarAutoSupply,
Plaintiff,
versusCIVILCASENO.R21968
For:SUMOFMONEYAND
MS.SULPICIAVENTURA,DAMAGES
Defendant.
Oox
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
PLAINTIFFthrucounsel,untothisHonorableCourtmostrespectfullystatesthat:
1.xxx
2.DuringthelifetimeofCarlosNgoheandhiswife,thedefendanthereinareindebtedwiththeplaintiffin
theamountofP48,889.70asevidencedbytheheretoattachedstatementmarkedasAnnexesAandA1
whichaccountwasobtainedforthebenefitoftheirfamilyandisbeingconfirmedbytheirsonRoyNgoper
hissignaturemarkedasAnnexA2
3.xxx
4.Forseveraltimes,thedefendanthadconcealedherselfinherhousewhentheplaintiff'srepresentativewent
toherresidencetocollectpaymentofthesaidaccount
5.xxx
xxx.[12]
Petitioner filed a Comment to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.[13] She reiterated that whether the
unsecureddebtwascontractedbyherhusbandaloneorasachargeagainsttheconjugalpartnershipofgains,
it cannot be denied that her husband was now deceased, the said debt does not survive him, the conjugal
partnershipofgainsisterminateduponthedeathofoneofthespouses,andthedebtsandchargesagainstthe
conjugal partnership of gains may only be paid after an inventory is made in the appropriate testate or
intestateproceeding.
PrivaterespondentfiledaRejoindertoDefendant'sComment.[14]Hecounteredthatthedefendantinhis
amendedcomplaintwasnowpetitionerandthatshewasnotdeceased,hencetheinapplicabilityofthelegal
rulesontheabatementofmoneyclaimsincasethedefendantdiespendingtheirprosecution.
Publicrespondentissuedthehereinassailedorderwhichreadsasfollows:
ORDER
ThiscaseiscalledtodaytodealonthemotionforreconsiderationoftheorderofthisCourtdatedNovember
16,1982denyingthemotionofthedefendanttodismissthecomplaint.
InitsorderofNovember16,1982,theCourtintheinterestofjusticeadvisedtheplaintifftomaketheproper
amendmentsothattheproperpartydefendantmaybeimpleadedconsideringthatthemotiontodismissthen
wasanchoredonthegroundthattheestateofCarlosNgowasnotanaturalnorjuridicalperson,henceit
couldnotbesued.OnDecember23,1982,theplaintiffamendeditscomplaintandthistimethedefendantis
alreadySulpiciaVentura.Thedefendantnowarguesthateventheamendedcomplaintwouldshowthatthis
isreallyacollectionofadebtoftheconjugalpartnershipofdeceasedCarlong[sic]Ngoandhiswife.
Perusingtheamendedcomplaint,theCourtfindsthatinParagraph2theallegationstates:Duringthelifetime
ofCarlosNgo,heandhiswife,thedefendant,areindebtedwiththeplaintiffintheamountofP48,689.70,
(sic)etc.,sothattheindebtednesswasincurredbyCarlosNgoanddefendantSulpiciaVenturaandsince
CarlosNgoisnowdeadthatwillnotprecludetheplaintifffromfilingacaseagainstthelivingdefendant,
SulpiciaVentura.
WHEREFORE,themotionforreconsiderationisherebyDENIEDandthedefendantmayfileheranswer
withinfifteen(15)daysfromtoday.
ITISSOORDERED.[15]
PetitionerscurriedtothisCourtprayingthattheforegoingorderofthepublicrespondentbesetaside
andtheamendedcomplaintofprivaterespondent,ordereddismissed.[16]
Wegrantthepetition.
First.Sec. 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court provided that only natural or judicial persons, or
entitiesauthorizedbylawmaybepartiesinacivilaction.Thiswastherulein1982atthetimethatprivate
respondentfiledhiscomplaintagainstpetitioner.In1997,therulesoncivilprocedurewererevised,butSec.
1,Rule3remainedlargelyunaltered,exceptforthechangeoftheword,judicialtojuridical.
Partiesmaybeeitherplaintiffsordefendants.Theplaintiffinanactionisthepartycomplaining,anda
properpartyplaintiffisessentialtoconferjurisdictiononthecourt.[17]Inordertomaintainanactionina
courtofjustice,theplaintiffmusthaveanactuallegalexistence,thatis,he,sheoritmustbeapersoninlaw
and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or an artificial person, and no suit can be lawfully
prosecutedsaveinthenameofsuchaperson.[18]
Theruleisnodifferentasregardspartydefendants.Itisincumbentuponaplaintiff,whenheinstitutesa
judicialproceeding,tonametheproperpartydefendanttohiscauseofaction.[19]Inasuitorproceedingin
personamofanadversarycharacter,thecourtcanacquirenojurisdictionforthepurposeoftrialorjudgment
untilapartydefendantwhoactuallyorlegallyexistsandislegallycapableofbeingsued,isbroughtbefore
it.[20]It hasevenbeenheld that the question of the legal personality of a party defendantisaquestionof
substancegoingtothejurisdictionofthecourtandnotoneofprocedure.[21]
TheoriginalcomplaintofpetitionernamedtheestateofCarlosNgoasrepresentedbysurvivingspouse
Ms.SulpiciaVenturaasthedefendant.Petitionermovedtodismissthesameonthegroundthatthedefendant
asnamedinthecomplainthadnolegalpersonality.Weagree.
Neitheradeadpersonnorhisestatemaybeapartyplaintiffinacourtaction.Adeceasedpersondoes
nothavesuchlegalentityasisnecessarytobringactionsomuchsothatamotiontosubstitutecannotlieand
shouldbedeniedbythecourt.[22]Anactionbegunbyadecedent'sestatecannotbesaidtohavebeenbegun
byalegalperson,sinceanestateisnotalegalentitysuchanactionisanullityandamotiontoamendthe
party plaintiff will not likewise lie, there being nothing before the court to amend.[23] Considering that
capacitytobesuedisacorrelativeofthecapacitytosue,tothesameextent,adecedentdoesnothavethe
capacitytobesuedandmaynotbenamedapartydefendantinacourtaction.[24]
Second.ItisclearthattheoriginalcomplaintofprivaterespondentagainsttheestateofCarlosNgowas
asuitagainstCarlosNgohimselfwhowasalreadydeadatthetimeofthefilingofsaidcomplaint.At that
time,andthis,privaterespondentadmitted,nospecialproceedingtosettlehisestatehadbeenfiledincourt.
Assuch,thetrialcourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionovereitherthedeceasedCarlosNgoorhisestate.
Tocurethisfataldefect,privaterespondentamendedhisoriginalcomplaint.Inhisamendedcomplaint,
privaterespondentdeletedtheestateofCarlosNgoandnamedpetitionerasthedefendant.Whenpetitioner,
inhercommenttotheamendedcomplaint,reasonedthattheconjugalpartnershipofgainsbetweenherand
CarlosNgowasterminateduponthelatter'sdeathandthatthedebtwhichhecontracted,assumingitwasa
chargeagainsttheconjugalproperty,couldonlybepaidafteraninventoryismadeintheappropriatetestate
or intestate proceeding, private respondent simply reiterated his demand that petitioner pay her husband's
debtwhich,heinsisted,redoundedtothebenefitofeveryoneinherfamily.
Itistruethatamendmentstopleadingsareliberallyallowedinfurtheranceofjustice,inorderthatevery
casemaysofaraspossiblebedeterminedonitsrealfacts,andinordertospeedthetrialofcausesorprevent
the circuitry of action and unnecessary expense.[25] But amendments cannot be allowed so as to confer
jurisdictionuponacourtthatneveracquireditinthefirstplace.[26]Whenitisevidentthatthecourthasno
jurisdictionoverthepersonandthesubjectmatterandthatthepleadingissofatallydefectiveasnottobe
susceptibleofamendment,orthattopermitsuchamendmentwouldradicallyalterthetheoryandthenature
oftheaction,thenthecourtshouldrefusetheamendmentofthedefectivepleadingandorderthedismissalof
thecase.[27]
Moreover,ascorrectlyarguedbypetitioner,theconjugalpartnershipterminatesuponthedeathofeither
spouse.[28]Afterthedeathofoneofthespouses,incaseitisnecessarytosellanyportionoftheconjugal
propertyinordertopayoutstandingobligationsofthepartnership,suchsalemustbemadeinthemannerand
withtheformalitiesestablishedbytheRulesofCourtforthesaleofthepropertyofdeceasedpersons.[29]
Whereacomplaintisbroughtagainstthesurvivingspousefortherecoveryofanindebtednesschargeable
againstsaidconjugalproperty,anyjudgmentobtainedtherebyisvoid.[30]Theproperactionshouldbeinthe
formofaclaimtobefiledinthetestateorintestateproceedingsofthedeceasedspouse.[31]
Inmanycasesasintheinstantone,evenafterthedeathofoneofthespouses,thereisnoliquidationof
the conjugal partnership. This does not mean, however, that the conjugal partnership continues.[32] And
privaterespondentcannotbesaidtohavenoremedy.UnderSec.6,Rule78oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,
he may apply in court for letters of administration in his capacity as a principal creditor of the deceased
CarlosNgoifafterthirty(30)daysfromhisdeath,petitionerfailedtoapplyforadministrationorrequestthat
administrationbegrantedtosomeotherperson.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint filed by
privaterespondentisHEREBYDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
Pardo,andYnaresSantiago,JJ.,concur.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),andKapunan,J.,onofficialleave.
[1]Annex"K"ofthePetition,Rollo,p.36.
[2]Annex"B"ofthePetition,Rollo,p.16.Petitioner'sMotionforReconsiderationwasalsodenied.
[3]Annex"A"ofthePetition,Rollo,pp.1315.
[4]Annex"B"ofthePetition,Rollo,p.16.
[5]Annex"C"ofthePetition,Rollo,pp.1718.
[6]Annex"C"ofthePetition,Rollo,p.17.
[7]Annex"D",Rollo,p.19.
[8]Annex"E"ofthePetition,Rollo,pp.2022.
[9]Annex"F"ofthePetition,Rollo,pp.2627.
[10]Annex"G",Rollo,p.28.
[11]Annex"H",Rollo,pp.2930.
[12]Ibid.