Ledesma vs. McLachlin

A claim for a monetary obligation contracted by a deceased person cannot be filed for collection before the committee on claims and appraisal in the intestate of that person's father, and the filing of such a claim in the wrong estate does not suspend the prescriptive period of the judicial action for recovery; moreover, properties inherited by children by right of representation from their grandfather do not answer for the debts of their predeceased father who left no estate.

Socorro Ledesma lived maritally with Lorenzo M. Quitco from 1916 to 1921 while the latter was still single, and their union produced a daughter, Ana Quitco Ledesma. After the relationship ended, Lorenzo acknowledged Ana as his natural daughter and issued a promissory note to Socorro. Lorenzo subsequently married Conchita McLachlin and had four children with her. Lorenzo died on March 9, 1930, without leaving any property. His father, Eusebio Quitco, died on December 15, 1932, leaving real and personal properties, and intestate proceedings were instituted for Eusebio's estate. The defendants—Lorenzo's children by Conchita—stood to inherit from Eusebio by right of representation, Lorenzo having predeceased his father.

In 1916, Socorro Ledesma lived maritally with Lorenzo M. Quitco while the latter was still single, a relationship that lasted until 1921 and produced a daughter, Ana Quitco Ledesma. When the relationship ended, Lorenzo executed a deed acknowledging Ana as his natural daughter. On January 21, 1922, he issued a promissory note in favor of Socorro Ledesma for P2,000, payable in installments: P250 on March 1, 1922, another P250 on November 1, 1922, and the remaining P1,500 two years from the date of execution, that is, on January 21, 1924.

Lorenzo M. Quitco subsequently married the defendant Conchita McLachlin, with whom he had four children—the other defendants in this case. On March 9, 1930, Lorenzo died, leaving no property whatsoever. On December 15, 1932, his father Eusebio Quitco also died, leaving real and personal properties. Intestate proceedings for Eusebio's estate were instituted in the Court of First Instance, designated as civil case No. 6153, "Intestate of the deceased Eusebio Quitco."

Upon the institution of the intestate proceedings and the appointment of a committee on claims and appraisal, Socorro Ledesma, on August 26, 1935, filed the promissory note before the committee for payment. The commissioners, instead of passing upon it, elevated the matter to the court en consulta. The presiding judge of the First Branch returned the consulta and refrained from giving an opinion, whereupon the commissioners, alleging lack of jurisdiction, denied the claim.

On November 14, 1933, the court issued an order of declaration of heirs in the intestate of Eusebio Quitco. Ana Quitco Ledesma was not included among the declared heirs. Socorro Ledesma, as Ana's mother, sought reconsideration of the order, but the court denied the petition. No appeal was taken from that denial; instead, the complaint giving rise to this case was filed on June 26, 1934. The trial court declared Ana an acknowledged natural daughter of Lorenzo M. Quitco but absolved the defendants as to her claim to a share in Eusebio's properties, and on the second cause of action ordered the defendants to pay Socorro P1,500 with legal interest. The defendants appealed, assigning three errors: that the action for the P1,500 had not prescribed, that the inherited properties were subject to the father's debts, and that the defendants were liable for the P1,500.

• Prescription: Whether the action to recover the sum of P1,500, representing the last installment of the promissory note, has prescribed.
• Liability of Inherited Properties: Whether the properties inherited by the defendants from their deceased grandfather by right of representation are subject to the debts and obligations of their deceased father, who died without leaving any property.

• Prescription: Yes. The action had prescribed, more than ten years having elapsed from January 21, 1924—the date the last installment fell due—until the filing of the complaint on June 26, 1934, under section 43, No. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Liability of Inherited Properties: No. The right of representation under articles 924 to 927 of the Civil Code does not make the representative answerable for the obligations of the person represented; the inheritance is received with the benefit of inventory, and the heirs answer only with the properties received from their predecessor.

• Prescription: The promissory note was executed on January 21, 1922, and the last installment of P1,500 was due two years from that date, i.e., January 21, 1924. The complaint was filed on June 26, 1934, more than ten years after the expiration of the period, bringing the action within the prescriptive bar of section 43, No. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The filing of the claim before the committee on claims and appraisal in the intestate of Eusebio Quitco did not suspend the running of the prescriptive period, because the claim should not have been presented in the estate of Eusebio—the deceased who executed the promissory note was Lorenzo M. Quitco, not his father. The proper remedy was for Socorro Ledesma to institute intestate proceedings for Lorenzo's estate under section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes a creditor to procure the appointment of an administrator for the purpose of collecting a credit. Having filed the claim in the wrong estate, the prescriptive period continued to run uninterrupted.

• Liability of Inherited Properties: Under articles 924 to 927 of the Civil Code, a child represents a deceased parent in the inheritance of a grandparent. However, this right of representation does not render the child liable for the obligations contracted by the predeceased parent. As the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure governing partition of inheritances demonstrate, the inheritance is received with the benefit of inventory, meaning heirs answer only with the properties received from their predecessor. Since the defendants inherited from Eusebio Quitco by representation of their father Lorenzo, and Lorenzo himself left no property, the defendants are not bound to pay Lorenzo's indebtedness from the properties they received through representation.

• Right of Representation Does Not Carry Liability for the Represented Person's Debts — Under articles 924 to 927 of the Civil Code, a child represents a predeceased parent in the inheritance of a grandparent, but this right of representation does not make the child answerable for the obligations contracted by the deceased parent. The inheritance is received with the benefit of inventory; heirs answer only with the properties received from their predecessor. Applied here, the defendants inherited from their grandfather Eusebio Quitco by representation of their father Lorenzo M. Quitco, who died without leaving any property, and thus the inherited properties were not subject to Lorenzo's debts.

• Filing a Claim in the Wrong Estate Does Not Suspend Prescription — A claim for a monetary obligation contracted by a deceased person must be filed in the intestate proceedings of that person, not in the intestate of the person's parent. Filing the claim in the wrong estate does not toll or suspend the prescriptive period of the judicial action for recovery. A creditor may institute intestate proceedings for the debtor's estate under section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure to secure the appointment of an administrator for the purpose of collecting the credit.

• "the said deceased not being the one who executed the same, but in the intestate of Lorenzo M. Quitco, which should have been instituted by the said Socorro Ledesma as provided in section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure, authorizing a creditor to institute said case through the appointment of an administrator for the purpose of collecting his credit." — This passage establishes the ratio decidendi on prescription: a claim must be filed in the estate of the actual obligor, and filing in the wrong estate does not toll the prescriptive period.

• "this right of representation does not make the said child answerable for the obligations contracted by his deceased father or mother, because, as may be seen from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure referring to partition of inheritances, the inheritance is received with the benefit of inventory, that is to say, the heirs only answer with the properties received from their predecessor." — This defines the controlling doctrine on the limits of liability under the right of representation, distinguishing the right to inherit from liability for the represented person's debts.

• Section 43, No. 1, Code of Civil Procedure — Governs the prescriptive period for actions upon a written contract. Applied to bar the recovery of the P1,500, as more than ten years had elapsed from the date the installment fell due (January 21, 1924) to the filing of the complaint (June 26, 1934).
• Section 642, Code of Civil Procedure — Authorizes a creditor to institute intestate proceedings for the estate of a deceased debtor through the appointment of an administrator for the purpose of collecting a credit. Cited to show the proper remedy available to Socorro Ledesma, which she failed to pursue.
• Articles 924 to 927, Civil Code — Govern the right of representation in succession, whereby a child represents a predeceased parent in the inheritance of a grandparent. Applied to determine that while the defendants inherited from Eusebio Quitco by representation of their father, this did not make them liable for their father's debts.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concurred.