Ventura vs. Militante

A deceased person or their estate lacks the legal capacity to be sued in a civil action for a sum of money; consequently, a complaint filed against such a non-entity is void ab initio and cannot be cured by amending the pleading to substitute the surviving spouse, as the court never acquired jurisdiction over the person or subject matter in the first instance.

A proprietor of an auto supply business sought to recover an unpaid debt of P48,889.70 for automotive spare parts purchased by a customer, Carlos Ngo. However, at the time the creditor decided to file the lawsuit, Carlos Ngo had already passed away. Instead of initiating estate proceedings, the creditor filed a direct collection suit against the "Estate of Carlos Ngo," leading to a legal dispute regarding the proper party to be sued and the jurisdiction of the trial court.

• Private respondent John Uy filed a Complaint for a Sum of Money and Damages against the "Estate of Carlos Ngo as represented by surviving spouse Ms. Sulpicia Ventura" to recover the cost of automotive spare parts.
• At the time the complaint was filed, Carlos Ngo was already deceased.
• Petitioner Sulpicia Ventura moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the "Estate of Carlos Ngo" had no legal personality and was neither a natural nor legal person.
• The public respondent (Judge Militante) denied the motion to dismiss and ordered the private respondent to amend the complaint to implead the proper party defendant.
• Private respondent filed an Amended Complaint, removing the "Estate" and naming Sulpicia Ventura personally as the defendant, alleging the debt was incurred for the benefit of the family.
• Petitioner filed a Comment arguing that the debt does not survive the husband, the conjugal partnership terminated upon death, and debts must be paid through estate proceedings.
• The public respondent denied the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and ordered her to file an Answer, reasoning that the death of the husband did not preclude a suit against the living wife for a conjugal debt.

• The "Estate of Carlos Ngo" is neither a natural nor a juridical person and therefore lacks the legal personality to be sued.
• The action is a money claim that does not survive the death of the decedent under the Rules of Court.
• The trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person because the original defendant was non-existent.
• The conjugal partnership of gains terminated upon the death of the husband; therefore, debts chargeable against it must be settled in testate or intestate proceedings, not in a separate collection suit against the widow.

• The debt incurred by the deceased husband was for the benefit of the family and the conjugal partnership.
• The surviving spouse (Petitioner) is liable to pay the obligation that benefited the family.
• The amendment of the complaint to name the surviving spouse as the defendant cured the defect regarding the estate's legal personality.
• Since the amended complaint names a living person (Sulpicia Ventura), the rules on the abatement of money claims due to death do not apply.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over the case when the original complaint named a deceased person/estate as the defendant?
  • Can a fatal defect regarding the lack of legal personality of the defendant be cured by amending the complaint?
• Substantive Issues:
  • Can a surviving spouse be sued directly for the recovery of debts incurred by the deceased spouse that are chargeable to the conjugal partnership?

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction. Since a deceased person or their estate is not a legal entity, the original complaint was a nullity. Because the court had no jurisdiction over the original non-existent defendant, the defect could not be cured by amendment. Amendments cannot retroactively confer jurisdiction upon a court that never acquired it in the first place.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that the conjugal partnership terminates upon the death of either spouse. If it is necessary to pay outstanding obligations of the partnership, the claim must be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. A separate action against the surviving spouse for such debts is improper, and any judgment obtained in such a suit is void.

• Legal Capacity to be Sued — Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law, may be parties in a civil action. In this case, the Court applied this by declaring that neither a dead person nor his estate possesses the legal entity status necessary to be a party defendant.
• Jurisdiction via Amendment — While amendments to pleadings are generally allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits, they cannot be used to confer jurisdiction upon a court that never acquired it. The Court used this to rule that substituting the widow for the estate did not validate the originally void complaint.
• Termination of Conjugal Partnership — The conjugal partnership is terminated upon the death of one of the spouses. The Court applied this to establish that creditors must seek payment through the settlement of the estate (probate proceedings) rather than suing the surviving spouse directly.

• "Neither a dead person nor his estate may be a party plaintiff in a court action. A deceased person does not have such legal entity as is necessary to bring action so much so that a motion to substitute cannot lie and should be denied by the court."
• "But amendments cannot be allowed so as to confer jurisdiction upon a court that never acquired it in the first place."
• "Where a complaint is brought against the surviving spouse for the recovery of an indebtedness chargeable against said conjugal property, any judgment obtained thereby is void."

• Cese v. GSIS — Cited to acknowledge the general rule that amendments are liberally allowed to determine cases on their real facts and prevent circuitry of action.
• Rosario and Untalan v. Carangdang — Cited to establish the exception that amendments cannot be allowed to confer jurisdiction upon a court that never acquired it.
• Calma v. Tanedo — Cited to support the ruling that a judgment obtained in a complaint against a surviving spouse for partnership indebtedness is void.
• Alvarez v. Commonwealth of the Phil. — Cited to support the principle that when a pleading is fatally defective and the court lacks jurisdiction, amendment should be refused and the case dismissed.

• Rule 3, Section 1, Revised Rules of Court — States that "only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action." This was the primary basis for declaring the "Estate of Carlos Ngo" as an improper defendant.
• Rule 78, Section 6, Revised Rules of Court — Cited by the Court to point out that the creditor (private respondent) had a remedy: he could have applied for letters of administration himself if the family failed to do so within 30 days of the death.
• Article 175, Civil Code / Article 126, Family Code — Cited to affirm that the conjugal partnership terminates upon the death of either spouse.