SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:

CONSTI 1 Death NCC 42 21 Aug 2018 Mico and Pia

CASE NAME: Limjoco v. Intestate Estate of Pedro Fragante (GR No. 152295)
PONENTE: Hilado, J. Case Date: April 27, 1948

Case Summary:
Pedro O. Fragrante died while he is applying for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC)
to install, maintain, and operate an ice plant in San Juan Rizal. Petitioner argues that his
death terminated his application and is no longer qualified to apply. The present case
tackles the intestate estate of the deceased. SC denied the present petition at hand as
the estate of Fragante must be considered as an artificial person.
Rule of Law/Doctrine:
NCC 42. Civil personality is extinguished by death. The effect of death upon the rights
and obligations of the deceased is determined by law, by contract or by will.

Estate Continues Personality - For certain purposes, after the death of a person, his
personality is deemed to continue in his estate. In this jurisdiction, the estate of the
deceased person is also considered as having legal personality independent of the heirs.

Detailed Facts:
 May 21, 1946: Public Service Commission, through Deputy Commissioner Fidel Ibanez,
rendered its decision in case No. 4572 of Pedro Fragante, as an applicant for a Certificate of
Public Convenience (CPC) to install, maintain, and operate an ice plant in San Juan, Rizal.
 PSC held that the evidence therein showed that the public interest and convenience will be
promoted in a proper and suitable manner by “authorizing the operation and maintenance of
another ice plant of two and one half tons in the municipality of San Juan, that the Fragante
was a Filipino citizen, and that his intestate estate is financially capable of maintainging the
proposed service.
o During the course of his application process, Fragante died.
 Limjoco then opposed the application of Fragante arguing that his death terminated his
application. He is no longer qualified to apply.
 Public Service Commission overruled the opposition filed because:
(a) Evidence showed that public interest and convenience will be promoted if Fragante’s
application will be granted
(b) Fragante was a Filipino citizen at the time of his death and his intestate estate is financially
capable of maintaining the proposed service. (Already invested P35,000; Fragante’s
transportation business alone earns him P1,440 monthly(which is big back in 1948))
(c) Under Sec 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 145, Certificate of Public Convenience can be
issued to the Intestate Estate of the deceased
 Petitioners argue that the Commission erred (1) by allowing the substitute of the legal
representative of Fragante as party applicant in the case, and by subsequently (2) granting said
estate the Certificate of Public Convenience.
Issue:
(1)WON the Public Service Commission erred in granting the application of the
Intestate Estate of Fragante after Pedro O. Fragante’s death
(2)WON the estate of Pedro O. Fragante is a “person” within the meaning of Public
Service Act
Holding:
(1) NO.

If Fragante had not died, there is no question that he had the right to prosecute
his application before the Public Service Commission to its final conclusion. The
aforementioned right of Fragante DID NOT LAPSE through his death.

It constitutes part of the assets of his estate, for such a right was a PROPERTY
despite the possibility that in the end the commission might deny the application.

Under the law, there are only two requisites to to acquire desired CPC: citizenship
and economic ability. Both of which were satisfied by Fragante when he was still
alive.

If a right involved happens to consist in a prosecution of an unfinished proceeding

(in this case his CPC application, it is logical that the legal representative of the
deceased be empowered and entitled in behalf of the estate to exercise the right
effective in that proceeding (See Rules 88 and 82 of Rules of Court)

Under the regime of the Civil Code and before the enactment of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the heirs of a deceased person were considered in contemplation of
law as the continuation of his personality by virtue of the provision of article 661
of the Civil Code that the heirs succeed to all the rights and obligations of the
decedent by the mere fact of his death.

(2) YES

Court cited Supreme Court of Indiana and said that: The estate of a decedent is a
person in legal contemplation. The word “person” in its legal signification,
includes both natural persons (humans) and artificial persons (corporations,
collection of property with the capacity of having rights and duties, etc.). The
estate of Fragante can be classified as an ARTIFICIAL PERSON.

There will be failure of justice if the estate of Fragante is not considered a person
for the “quashing of the proceedings for no other reason than his death would
entail prejudicial results to his investment amounting to P35,000.00 as found by
the commission, not counting the expenses and disbursements which the
proceeding can be presumed to have occasioned him during his lifetime, let alone
those defrayed by the estate thereafter.”
Ruling:
Petition Denied
Relevant Consti Provisions
RULES OF COURT
Rule 88, section 2, provides that the executor or administrator may bring or defend
actions, among other cases, for the protection of the property or rights of the deceased
which survive, and it says that such actions may be brought or defended "in the right of
the deceased".
Rule 82, section 1, paragraph (a), mentions among the duties of the executor or
administrator, the making of an inventory of all goods, chattels, rights, credits, and
estate of the deceased which shall come to his possession or knowledge, or to the
possession of any other person for him.