Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

A creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against the conjugal partnership; the proper remedy is to file a claim in the settlement of the estate of the decedent.

The dispute arose from a sublease contract for a fishpond involving the respondent as lessor and two married couples (the Alipios and the Manuels) as sublessees. After the husband of the petitioner passed away, the lessor filed a collection suit against the surviving wife and the other couple for unpaid rent. The case centered on whether the surviving wife could be sued directly for the conjugal debt and the nature of the liability of the parties under the contract.

• Respondent Romeo Jaring was the lessee of a 14.5-hectare fishpond in Bataan.
• On June 19, 1987, Jaring subleased the fishpond to Spouses Placido and Purita Alipio and Spouses Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel for a total rent of P485,600.00.
• All four sublessees signed the contract, which stipulated payment in two installments.
• The first installment was paid, but the sublessees failed to pay the full balance of the second installment due on June 30, 1989, leaving a debt of P50,600.00.
• Placido Alipio (petitioner's husband) died on December 1, 1988.
• On October 13, 1989, more than 10 months after Placido's death, Jaring filed a collection suit against the Alipio and Manuel spouses in the Regional Trial Court.
• Petitioner Purita Alipio moved to dismiss the case on the ground that her husband had died prior to the filing of the suit, arguing the claim should be filed in estate proceedings.
• The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Purita was a party to the contract and could be independently impleaded.
• The trial court rendered judgment ordering Petitioner and the Manuel spouses to pay the unpaid balance plus attorney's fees.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, citing jurisprudence that allowed suits to continue against surviving solidary debtors.

• The case should be dismissed because her husband died prior to the filing of the complaint.
• The action is for the recovery of money or debt and should be prosecuted as a money claim against the estate of the decedent, not as an ordinary suit against the surviving spouse.
• The liability under the contract is not solidary, making the cases cited by the lower courts inapplicable.

• The surviving spouse was a signatory to the sublease contract and can be independently impleaded in the suit.
• The death of the husband merely resulted in his exclusion from the case, but the action should proceed against the surviving wife and the other defendants.
• The obligation of the sublessees is solidary, allowing the creditor to sue any of the debtors for the full amount.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a creditor can sue the surviving spouse for the collection of a debt chargeable to the conjugal partnership in an ordinary civil action when the other spouse died before the suit was filed.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the obligation of the sublessees (Spouses Alipio and Spouses Manuel) under the sublease contract is joint or solidary.

• Procedural:
  • The Court ruled that the creditor cannot maintain the ordinary suit against the petitioner. Upon the death of one spouse, the conjugal partnership is automatically dissolved, and debts chargeable against it must be paid in the estate settlement proceedings. The surviving spouse ceases to have powers of administration, and the proper remedy is for the creditor to file a claim in the settlement of the estate of the deceased husband. The Court noted that Rule 3, Section 21 (regarding death during pendency) did not apply because the husband died before the suit was filed.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that the liability of the sublessees is merely joint, not solidary. Under Article 1207 of the Civil Code, solidarity is not presumed and exists only when expressly stated or required by law or the nature of the obligation. The contract did not specify solidary liability. Therefore, the unpaid balance of P50,600.00 must be divided into two equal shares: P25,300.00 chargeable to the Alipio spouses (to be claimed in estate proceedings) and P25,300.00 payable immediately by the Manuel spouses.

• Proper Procedure for Conjugal Debts after Death — Upon the death of either spouse, no complaint for the collection of indebtedness chargeable against the conjugal partnership can be brought against the surviving spouse. Instead, the claim must be made in the proceedings for the liquidation and settlement of the conjugal property.
• Presumption of Joint Liability — Under Article 1207 of the Civil Code, if the law or the wording of the obligation does not state otherwise, an obligation is presumed to be only joint, meaning the debt is divided into as many equal shares as there are debtors, each debt being considered distinct from one another.
• Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership — The conjugal partnership is automatically dissolved upon the death of either spouse, terminating the surviving spouse's power of administration over the partnership assets.

• "We hold that a creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against the conjugal partnership and that the proper remedy is to file a claim in the settlement of estate of the decedent."
• "Indeed, if from the law or the nature or the wording of the obligation the contrary does not appear, an obligation is presumed to be only joint, i.e., the debt is divided into as many equal shares as there are debtors, each debt being considered distinct from one another."

• Calma v. Tañedo — Cited as the controlling precedent establishing that after the death of a spouse, claims against the conjugal partnership must be filed in estate settlement proceedings, not against the surviving spouse.
• Ventura v. Militante — Reaffirmed the ruling in Calma, holding that a judgment in an ordinary collection suit against a surviving spouse for a conjugal debt is void.
• Climaco v. Siy Uy — Distinguished by the Court; the CA relied on this case, but the Supreme Court noted it involved a claim for damages (malicious prosecution) which does not survive death, unlike the contract debt in the present case.
• Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. David — Distinguished by the Court; the CA relied on this case, but the Supreme Court noted it involved a solidary obligation (indemnity agreement) which allows suit against the survivor, whereas the present case involves a joint obligation.
• Agcaoili vs. Vda. de Agcaoili — Cited to illustrate that an independent suit against a wife is only proper if she bound herself jointly and severally with her husband.

• Rule 3, Section 21 (1964 Rules of Court) — Provided that money claims must be dismissed if the defendant dies before final judgment; this was the basis of the petitioner's motion to dismiss.
• Rule 3, Section 20 (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) — Current rule allowing actions to continue until entry of final judgment; the Court noted this amendment but deemed it inapplicable because the husband died before the case was filed.
• Civil Code, Article 161(1) (now Family Code Art. 121) — Cited to establish that the debt contracted by the husband and wife is chargeable against the conjugal partnership.
• Rule 73, Section 2 — Mandates that upon the dissolution of marriage by death, community property shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse.
• Civil Code, Article 1207 — Cited to support the ruling that solidarity is not presumed and that the obligation in this case is merely joint.