Nacar vs. Nistal

A complaint that alleges a debt incurred by a deceased person, filed against a party who did not incur the obligation and against whom no correlative duty is shown, states no cause of action, and the attachment issued thereon is void; moreover, a claim against the estate of a deceased person may not be pursued in an ordinary action before a municipal court.

Nicanor Nacar was the stepfather of the late Isabelo Nacar, who died in April 1970 leaving, among other personal property, seven carabaos then in Nacar's possession. Private respondent Ildefonso Japitana claimed that Isabelo Nacar had incurred an indebtedness of P2,791.00 at various dates since 1968. No estate settlement proceedings had been filed for the deceased. Antonio Doloricon, an intervenor, separately claimed ownership of the attached carabaos under certificates of ownership of large cattle issued in his name. The case arose under the Rules of Court governing civil procedure, attachment, and estate settlement, particularly the rules on cause of action and the jurisdiction of inferior courts over claims against estates of deceased persons.

Nicanor Nacar was the stepfather of the late Isabelo Nacar, who died in April 1970. At the time of Isabelo's death, seven carabaos belonging to the estate were in Nacar's possession. Three of these carabaos were slaughtered during the rites preceding Isabelo's burial, leaving four in Nacar's possession.

Private respondent Ildefonso Japitana claimed that at various dates since 1968, Isabelo Nacar had incurred an indebtedness to him in the total sum of P2,791.00, which had long been overdue and remained unpaid despite repeated demands. On the basis of this claim, Japitana filed a complaint before the Municipal Court of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, docketed as Civil Case No. 65 and entitled "Claim Against the Estate of the Late Isabelo Nacar With Preliminary Attachment." The complaint named Nicanor Nacar as defendant and alleged that he was "about to remove and dispose" of the carabaos "with intent to defraud." Japitana offered to post a bond for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in an amount not exceeding P2,791.00.

Respondent Judge Claudio A. Nistal issued an order commanding the provincial sheriff to attach the seven carabaos in Nacar's possession. Only four carabaos were actually attached, as three had already been slaughtered. Nacar filed a motion to dismiss, to dissolve the writ of preliminary attachment, and to order the return of the carabaos, raising the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and absence of a cause of action. He contended that the indebtedness was incurred by the late Isabelo Nacar and not by him, and that a municipal court had no jurisdiction to entertain an action involving a claim against the estate of a deceased person.

Japitana opposed the motion. Meanwhile, Antonio Doloricon filed a complaint in intervention asserting that he was the true owner of the attached carabaos and that the certificates of ownership of large cattle were in his name. The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that although the complaint's title styled it as a claim against the estate, the allegations showed the action was really for recovery of indebtedness. The judge declined to dismiss the case because of Doloricon's complaint in intervention and required Japitana to post an additional bond of P1,000.00 for custody of the carabaos pending final termination of the case.

Nacar then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary injunction. On January 12, 1971, the Court issued a preliminary mandatory injunction upon posting of a P1,000.00 bond, enjoining respondents from further enforcing the writ of attachment, directing return of the seized carabaos, and restraining the judge from further proceeding with Civil Case No. 65.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner contended that the municipal court had no jurisdiction to settle the estate of a deceased person, and that the proper remedy for a creditor was to file the corresponding claim in the Court of First Instance in the proper settlement proceedings.
• No Cause of Action: Petitioner averred that the indebtedness mentioned in the complaint was alleged to have been incurred by the late Isabelo Nacar and not by Nicanor Nacar, so there was no cause of action against him.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Issuance of Attachment: Petitioner argued that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion and disregarded the Rules of Court and Supreme Court decisions when he issued an ex parte writ of preliminary attachment without showing that the plaintiff had a sufficient cause of action, that there was no other security for the claim, or that the amount claimed was as much as the sum for which the order was prayed for, and without a proper bond to answer for damages.

• Nature of the Action: Respondent judge argued that although the title of the complaint styled it as a claim against the estate of the late Isabelo Nacar, the allegations showed that the nature of the action was really for the recovery of an indebtedness in the amount of P2,791.00.
• Intervention as Basis to Continue: Respondent court maintained that it would not dismiss the case because of the complaint in intervention filed by Doloricon, who alleged ownership of the carabaos, and required Japitana to post an additional bond for custody of the carabaos pending final termination.

• Cause of Action: Whether the complaint filed by Japitana states a cause of action against petitioner Nicanor Nacar.
• Jurisdiction: Whether the municipal court had jurisdiction to entertain a claim against the estate of a deceased person.
• Effect of Intervention: Whether the filing of a complaint in intervention by a third-party claimant cures the defect of the original complaint's failure to state a cause of action.
• Validity of Attachment: Whether the writ of preliminary attachment was properly issued.

• Cause of Action: No. The complaint stated no cause of action against petitioner Nacar, as the debt was incurred by the late Isabelo Nacar and nothing in the complaint showed that Nacar incurred the debt or had any correlative legal duty to pay it.
• Jurisdiction: No. A municipal court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action involving a claim against the estate of a deceased person; the proper remedy is to file the claim in estate settlement proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
• Effect of Intervention: No. The filing of a complaint in intervention does not cure the fatal defect in the original complaint, as the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by motion to dismiss must be tested exclusively on the basis of the complaint itself.
• Validity of Attachment: No. The writ of attachment was improperly issued, being based on a complaint that stated no cause of action; the Court found no need to separately discuss whether the procedural rules on attachment were followed.

• Cause of Action: The elements of a valid cause of action are: (1) the existence of a legal right in the plaintiff, (2) a correlative legal duty in the defendant, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiff's right with consequential injury or damage. While Japitana may have had a legal right to recover an indebtedness due him, Nacar had no correlative legal duty to pay the debt, because nothing in the complaint showed that he incurred the debt or had anything to do with the creation of the liability. The complaint was internally contradictory: one paragraph alleged that the defendant incurred debts since 1968, while subsequent paragraphs revealed that the debts were actually incurred by the late Isabelo Nacar, who died months before the complaint was filed. The complaint expressly stated as a material averment that the plaintiff was filing "a claim against the estate of the late Isabelo Nacar." Because no act or omission of Nacar violating Japitana's rights was alleged, no cause of action existed against him.

• Jurisdiction: The complaint was captioned and substantively framed as a claim against the estate of a deceased person. Municipal courts or inferior courts have no jurisdiction to settle the estate of deceased persons. The proper remedy for a creditor is to file the claim in the appropriate estate settlement proceedings. The respondent judge's attempt to recharacterize the action as an ordinary collection suit was unavailing, as the complaint's own allegations belied that characterization.

• Effect of Intervention: When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the complaint's failure to state a cause of action, the sufficiency of the complaint must be tested exclusively on the basis of the complaint itself and no other matter may be considered. The respondent court erred in refusing to dismiss the case simply because Doloricon filed a complaint in intervention alleging ownership of the carabaos. The ancillary matter of attachment and the third-party claim did not cure the fatal defect in the main action, which was the recovery of a debt of the late Isabelo Nacar—a cause of action about which petitioner Nacar had nothing to do.

• Validity of Attachment: Having concluded that the complaint stated no cause of action and that the respondent court lacked jurisdiction, the Court found no need to separately address whether the procedural rules on the issuance of a writ of attachment were followed. The attachment was improper as a matter of course, being founded on a defective complaint.

• Elements of a Cause of Action — A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. Its essential elements are: (1) the existence of a legal right in the plaintiff, (2) a correlative legal duty in the defendant, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiff's right with consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff for which he may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. The Court applied this test and found that while Japitana had a legal right to recover the debt, Nacar had no correlative duty to pay it, as the debt was incurred by the deceased Isabelo Nacar.

• Exclusivity of the Complaint in Testing Sufficiency — When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the complaint's failure to state a cause of action, the sufficiency of the complaint must be tested exclusively on the basis of the facts alleged therein; no extrinsic matter, including a complaint in intervention, may be considered. The Court held that the respondent court erred in refusing to dismiss the case on account of Doloricon's intervention, as that third-party claim could not cure the original complaint's failure to state a cause of action against Nacar.

• Claims Against Estates Must Be Pursued in Settlement Proceedings — A claim for money arising from unpaid indebtedness against a deceased person may not be pursued in an ordinary action but must be filed in the administration proceedings for the settlement of the deceased's estate. Municipal courts, not being vested with probate jurisdiction, cannot entertain such claims.

• "Indeed, although respondent Japitana may have a legal right to recover an indebtedness due him, petitioner Nicanor Nacar has no correlative legal duty to pay the debt for the simple reason that there is nothing in the complaint to show that he incurred the debt or had anything to do with the creation of the liability." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the absence of a cause of action, applying the three-element test to the facts and concluding that the second element—a correlative duty in the defendant—was missing.

• "the sufficiency of the complaint, when challenged in a motion to dismiss, must be determined exclusively on the basis of the facts alleged therein" — This is the canonical formulation of the rule that extrinsic matters cannot cure a complaint's failure to state a cause of action, cited from Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank and Trust Company and applied to reject the respondent court's reliance on the complaint in intervention.

• "The ancillary matter does not cure a fatal defect in the complaint for the main action is for the recovery of an outstanding debt of the late Isabelo Nacar due respondent Japitana, a cause of action about which petitioner Nacar has nothing to do." — This passage clarifies that the attachment of property, though ancillary to the main action, cannot sustain a case where the principal complaint is fatally defective.

• Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank and Trust Company, 58 SCRA 559 — Controlling precedent on the elements of a cause of action and the rule that the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by motion to dismiss must be tested exclusively on the basis of the complaint itself. Followed and applied.
• Maspil vs. Romero, 61 SCRA 197 — Cited for the principle that appropriate actions for the enforcement or defense of rights must be taken in accordance with procedural rules and cannot be left to the whims of litigants or the discretion of courts. Followed.
• Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 666 — Cited within Mathay as authority for the three-element definition of cause of action.
• Community Investment and Finance Corp. vs. Garcia, 88 Phil. 215 — Cited within Mathay for the proposition that a complaint stating ultimate facts constituting the three essential elements states a cause of action; otherwise it must succumb to a motion to dismiss.

• Section 3, Rule 6, Rules of Court — Provides that the complaint must state the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. Applied to test the sufficiency of Japitana's complaint, which failed to allege facts showing a correlative duty in Nacar.
• Section 1, Rule 16, Rules of Court — Provides that a motion to dismiss may be made on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, and that the sufficiency of the complaint must be tested exclusively on the basis of the complaint itself. Applied to hold that the complaint in intervention could not cure the original complaint's defect.
• Section 1, Rule 87, Rules of Court — Provides that no action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator. Cited in the concurring opinion to reinforce that claims against a deceased's estate must be pursued in settlement proceedings, not in ordinary actions.
• Section 5, Rule 86, Rules of Court — Provides that claims not filed within the period prescribed in settlement proceedings shall be deemed barred forever. Cited in the concurring opinion.
• Section 21, Rule 3, Rules of Court — Provides that even if an action were commenced during the lifetime of the deceased, the same shall be dismissed and the claim prosecuted in the proper administration proceedings. Cited in the concurring opinion.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, and Relova, JJ., concurred.

Justice Vasquez filed a separate concurring opinion emphasizing that the fundamental error was in pursuing a claim against the estate of a deceased person through an ordinary action and in the municipal judge entertaining it. He pointed out that under Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, no action upon a claim for recovery of money or debt may be commenced against an executor or administrator; the claim, being one arising from contract, could only be pursued by filing it in the administration proceedings for the estate of Isabelo Nacar. He further noted that the carabaos, if owned by Isabelo Nacar, pertained to his estate upon death and could not be attached through an ordinary action, and that the municipal court lacked probate jurisdiction.