BARITUA VS.

COURT OF APPEALS

Petitioners: Jose Baritua and Edgar Bitancor

Respondents: Nicolas and Victoria Nacario, Court of Appeals

Doctrine: Parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without a legitimate descendant.
Otherwise, the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs.

Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir
of the deceased spouse.

Facts:

In the evening of Nov. 7, 1979, the tricycle being driven by Bienvenido Nacario along the
national highway at Brgy. San Cayetano, Camarines Sur figured an accident with JB Bus No. 80
driven by petitioner Edgar and owned by petitioner Jose. As a result, Bienvenido and his
passenger died, and the tricycle was damaged. No criminal case was filed.

Subsequently on Mar 27, 1980, as consequence of the extra judicial settlement between
petitioners and the bus insurer (Philippine First Insurance Company), Bienvenidos widow, Alicia
Nacario, received P18,500. In consideration thereof, she executed a Release of Claim in favor
of petitioners and the insurer, releasing and forever discharging them from all claims and
actions arising from the incident. Alicia likewise executed an affidavit of desistance in which she
manifested her lack of interest in instituting any civil or criminal case against petitioners.

About 1 year and 10 months after the incident, private respondents who are parents of the
deceased Bienvenido filed a complaint for damages against petitioners alleging that during the
vigil for their deceased son, petitioners promised them, as extra judicial settlement,
indemnification for the expenses incurred by reason of the death of their son, and for the
damage done to the tricycle since it was loaned by the respondents to the deceased. Petitioners
however, reneged on their promise and instead negotiated and settled their obligations with the
long estranged wife of their late son. Aggregate amount of the claim is P20,505.

RTC: Dismissed the complaint. Held that payment made by the petitioners to the widow and her
child, who are preferred heirs and successors-in-interest of the deceased Bienvenido, to the
exclusion of his parents (respondents), extinguished any claim against the petitioners.

CA: Reversed. Ruled that the release made by Alicia did not discharged the liability of the
petitioners because case was instituted by private respondents in their own capacity and not as
heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns of Alicia; and Alicia could not have validly
waived the damage being prayed (as to the tricycle) since she was not the one who suffered
from these damages arising from the death of the deceased.

Issue: WON respondents can claim indemnity as successors-in-interest of the deceased Bienvenido
despite the agreement (extrajudicial settlement) between petitioners and the compulsory heirs.

Ruling:

No. They cannot.

 Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
o Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;
o In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their
legitimate children and descendants;
o The widow / widower;
o Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
o Other illegitimate children referred in Art. 287.
Art. 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his parents and
ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of collateral relatives.

It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased succeeds only when the latter dies without a
legitimate descendant. On the other hand, the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs.
As it has been established, Bienvenido was married to Alicia and that they begot a child. The
private respondents are not successors-in-interest of Bienvenido; they are not compulsory heirs.
Petitioners therefore acted correctly in settling their obligation with Alicia as the widow of
Bienvenido and as natural guardian of their lone child. This is so even if Alicia had been
estranged from Bienvenido. Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of
a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse.

As to their claim as alleged creditors of Bienvenido (allegedly loaned tricycle), same cannot be
granted. It may be true that respondents loaned to Bienvenido the purchase price of the
damaged tricycle and shouldered the expenses for the funeral, but the same are but money
claims against the estate of their deceased son. These money claims are not the liabilities of the
petitioners, who, as have said, had been released by the agreement of the extra judicial
settlement they concluded with Alicia Nacario (as victims widow and heir) and their child (co-
heir). As a matter of fact, she executed a Release of Claim in favor of the petitioners.

NOTES: (If ever Atty. would ask)

Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished by: (1) payment or performance; (2) loss of the thing
due; (3) condonation / remission of the debt; (4) confusion; (5) compensation; (6) novation.
There is no denying that the petitioners had paid their obligation arising from the accident.

WON Alicia, the surviving spouse and the one who received the petitioners payment, is entitled
to it.
Art. 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favour the obligation has been
constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.

There can be no question that Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors in
interest referred to in law as the persons authorized to receive payment. (relate to Art. 887)