SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 134100. September 29, 2000]

PURITA ALIPIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROMEO G. JARING,
represented by his Attorney-In-Fact RAMON G. JARING, respondents.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
The question for decision in this case is whether a creditor can sue the surviving
spouse for the collection of a debt which is owed by the conjugal partnership of gains,
or whether such claim must be filed in proceedings for the settlement of the estate of
the decedent. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in the affirmative. We
reverse.
The facts are as follows:
Respondent Romeo Jaring[1] was the lessee of a 14.5 hectare fishpond in Barito,
Mabuco, Hermosa, Bataan. The lease was for a period of five years ending on
September 12, 1990. On June 19, 1987, he subleased the fishpond, for the remaining
period of his lease, to the spouses Placido and Purita Alipio and the spouses
Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel. The stipulated amount of rent was P485,600.00,
payable in two installments of P300,000.00 and P185,600.00, with the second
installment falling due on June 30, 1989. Each of the four sublessees signed the
contract.
The first installment was duly paid, but of the second installment, the sublessees only
satisfied a portion thereof, leaving an unpaid balance of P50,600.00. Despite due
demand, the sublessees failed to comply with their obligation, so that, on October 13,
1989, private respondent sued the Alipio and Manuel spouses for the collection of the
said amount before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Dinalupihan, Bataan. In the
alternative, he prayed for the rescission of the sublease contract should the
defendants fail to pay the balance.
Petitioner Purita Alipio moved to dismiss the case on the ground that her husband,
Placido Alipio, had passed away on December 1, 1988.[2] She based her action on
Rule 3, 21 of the 1964 Rules of Court which then provided that "when the action is
for recovery of money, debt or interest thereon, and the defendant dies before final
judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the
manner especially provided in these rules." This provision has been amended so that
now Rule 3, 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
When the action is for the recovery of money arising from contract, express or
implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the
action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall

instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment

obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in
these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.
The trial court denied petitioner's motion on the ground that since petitioner was
herself a party to the sublease contract, she could be independently impleaded in the
suit together with the Manuel spouses and that the death of her husband merely
resulted in his exclusion from the case.[3] The Manuel spouses failed to file their
answer. For this reason, they were declared in default.
On February 26, 1991, the lower court rendered judgment after trial, ordering
petitioner and the Manuel spouses to pay private respondent the unpaid balance of
P50,600.00 plus attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 and the costs of the suit.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the trial court erred in
denying her motion to dismiss. In its decision[4] rendered on July 10, 1997, the
appellate court dismissed her appeal. It held:
The rule that an action for recovery of money, debt or interest thereon must be
dismissed when the defendant dies before final judgment in the regional trial court,
does not apply where there are other defendants against whom the action should be
maintained. This is the teaching of Climaco v. Siy Uy, wherein the Supreme Court
held:
Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it is clear that Climaco had a cause of action
against the persons named as defendants therein. It was, however, a cause of action
for the recovery of damages, that is, a sum of money, and the corresponding action
is, unfortunately, one that does not survive upon the death of the defendant, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
xxxxxxxxx
However, the deceased Siy Uy was not the only defendant, Manuel Co was also
named defendant in the complaint. Obviously, therefore, the order appealed from is
erroneous insofar as it dismissed the case against Co. (Underlining added)
Moreover, it is noted that all the defendants, including the deceased, were signatories
to the contract of sub-lease. The remaining defendants cannot avoid the action by
claiming that the death of one of the parties to the contract has totally extinguished
their obligation as held in Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. David:
We find no merit in this appeal. Under the law and well settled jurisprudence, when
the obligation is a solidary one, the creditor may bring his action in toto against any of
the debtors obligated in solidum. Thus, if husband and wife bound themselves jointly
and severally, in case of his death, her liability is independent of and separate from
her husband's; she may be sued for the whole debt and it would be error to hold that
the claim against her as well as the claim against her husband should be made in the

decedent's estate. (Agcaoili vs. Vda. de Agcaoili, 90 Phil. 97).[5]

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied on June 4, 1998.[6]
Hence this petition based on the following assignment of errors:
A. THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN APPLYING
CLIMACO v. SIY UY, 19 SCRA 858, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS NOT SEEKING THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AGAINST
REMAINING DEFENDANTS BUT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM FOR
PAYMENT AGAINST HER AND HER HUSBAND WHICH SHOULD BE
PROSECUTED AS A MONEY CLAIM.
B. THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN APPLYING
IMPERIAL INSURANCE INC. v. DAVID, 133 SCRA 317, WHICH IS NOT
APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE SPOUSES IN THIS CASE DID NOT BIND
THEMSELVES JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT JARING.
[7]
The petition is meritorious. 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 for him to file a claim
in the settlement of estate of the decedent.
First. Petitioner's husband died on December 1, 1988, more than ten months before
private respondent filed the collection suit in the trial court on October 13, 1989. This
case thus falls outside of the ambit of Rule 3, 21 which deals with dismissals of
collection suits because of the death of the defendant during the pendency of the
case and the subsequent procedure to be undertaken by the plaintiff, i.e., the filing of
claim in the proceeding for the settlement of the decedent's estate. As already noted,
Rule 3, 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure now provides that the case will be
allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the
plaintiff therein will then be enforced in the manner especially provided in the Rules
for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. The issue to be
resolved is whether private respondent can, in the first place, file this case against
petitioner.
Petitioner and her late husband, together with the Manuel spouses, signed the
sublease contract binding themselves to pay the amount of stipulated rent. Under the
law, the Alipios' obligation (and also that of the Manuels) is one which is chargeable
against their conjugal partnership. Under Art. 161(1) of the Civil Code, the conjugal
partnership is liable for
All debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership, and those contracted by the wife, also for the same purpose, in the cases
where she may legally bind the partnership.[8]
When petitioner's husband died, their conjugal partnership was automatically
dissolved[9] and debts chargeable against it are to be paid in the settlement of estate
proceedings in accordance with Rule 73, 2 which states:

Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage. When the marriage is dissolved
by the death of the husband or wife, the community property shall be inventoried,
administered, and liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate
proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the conjugal
partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either.
As held in Calma v. Taedo,[10] after the death of either of the spouses, 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. The reason for
this is that upon the death of one spouse, the powers of administration of the
surviving spouse ceases and is passed to the administrator appointed by the court
having jurisdiction over the settlement of estate proceedings.[11] Indeed, the surviving
spouse is not even a de facto administrator such that conveyances made by him of
any property belonging to the partnership prior to the liquidation of the mass of
conjugal partnership property is void.[12]
The ruling in Calma v. Taedo was reaffirmed in the recent case of Ventura v.
Militante.[13] In that case, the surviving wife was sued in an amended complaint for a
sum of money based on an obligation allegedly contracted by her and her late
husband. The defendant, who had earlier moved to dismiss the case, opposed the
admission of the amended complaint on the ground that the death of her husband
terminated their conjugal partnership and that the plaintiff's claim, which was
chargeable against the partnership, should be made in the proceedings for the
settlement of his estate. The trial court nevertheless admitted the complaint and ruled,
as the Court of Appeals did in this case, that since the defendant was also a party to
the obligation, the death of her husband did not preclude the plaintiff from filing an
ordinary collection suit against her. On appeal, the Court reversed, holding that
as correctly argued by petitioner, the conjugal partnership terminates upon the death
of either spouse. . . . Where a complaint is brought against the surviving spouse for
the recovery of an indebtedness chargeable against said conjugal [partnership], any
judgment obtained thereby is void. The proper action should be in the form of a claim
to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse.
In many cases as in the instant one, even after the death of one of the spouses, there
is no liquidation of the conjugal partnership. This does not mean, however, that the
conjugal partnership continues. And private respondent cannot be said to have no
remedy. Under Sec. 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court, he may apply in court
for letters of administration in his capacity as a principal creditor of the deceased . . . if
after thirty (30) days from his death, petitioner failed to apply for administration or
request that administration be granted to some other person.[14]
The cases relied upon by the Court of Appeals in support of its ruling, namely,
Climaco v. Siy Uy[15] and Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. David,[16] are based on different
sets of facts. In Climaco, the defendants, Carlos Siy Uy and Manuel Co, were sued
for damages for malicious prosecution. Thus, apart from the fact the claim was not
against any conjugal partnership, it was one which does not survive the death of
defendant Uy, which merely resulted in the dismissal of the case as to him but not as
to the remaining defendant Manuel Co.

With regard to the case of Imperial, the spouses therein jointly and severally executed
an indemnity agreement which became the basis of a collection suit filed against the
wife after her husband had died. For this reason, the Court ruled that since the
spouses' liability was solidary, the surviving spouse could be independently sued in
an ordinary action for the enforcement of the entire obligation.
It must be noted that for marriages governed by the rules of conjugal partnership of
gains, an obligation entered into by the husband and wife is chargeable against their
conjugal partnership and it is the partnership which is primarily bound for its
repayment.[17] Thus, when the spouses are sued for the enforcement of an obligation
entered into by them, they are being impleaded in their capacity as representatives of
the conjugal partnership and not as independent debtors such that the concept of
joint or solidary liability, as between them, does not apply. But even assuming the
contrary to be true, the nature of the obligation involved in this case, as will be
discussed later, is not solidary but rather merely joint, making Imperial still
inapplicable to this case.
From the foregoing, it is clear that private respondent cannot maintain the present suit
against petitioner. Rather, his remedy is to file a claim against the Alipios in the
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of petitioner's husband or, if none has
been commenced, he can file a petition either for the issuance of letters of
administration[18] or for the allowance of will,[19] depending on whether petitioner's
husband died intestate or testate. Private respondent cannot short-circuit this
procedure by lumping his claim against the Alipios with those against the Manuels
considering that, aside from petitioner's lack of authority to represent their conjugal
estate, the inventory of the Alipios' conjugal property is necessary before any claim
chargeable against it can be paid. Needless to say, such power exclusively pertains
to the court having jurisdiction over the settlement of the decedent's estate and not to
any other court.
Second. The trial court ordered petitioner and the Manuel spouses to pay private
respondent the unpaid balance of the agreed rent in the amount of P50,600.00
without specifying whether the amount is to be paid by them jointly or solidarily. In
connection with this, Art. 1207 of the Civil Code provides:
The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the
same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or
that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestations.
There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so estates, or when the
law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.
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.[20]

Private respondent does not cite any provision of law which provides that when there
are two or more lessees, or in this case, sublessees, the latter's obligation to pay the
rent is solidary. To be sure, should the lessees or sublessees refuse to vacate the
leased property after the expiration of the lease period and despite due demands by
the lessor, they can be held jointly and severally liable to pay for the use of the
property. The basis of their solidary liability is not the contract of lease or sublease but
the fact that they have become joint tortfeasors.[21] In the case at bar, there is no
allegation that the sublessees refused to vacate the fishpond after the expiration of
the term of the sublease. Indeed, the unpaid balance sought to be collected by private
respondent in his collection suit became due on June 30, 1989, long before the
sublease expired on September 12, 1990.
Neither does petitioner contend that it is the nature of lease that when there are more
than two lessees or sublessees their liability is solidary. On the other hand, the
pertinent portion of the contract involved in this case reads:[22]
2. That the total lease rental for the sub-leased fishpond for the entire period of three
(3) years and two (2) months is FOUR HUNDRED EIGHT-FIVE THOUSAND SIX
HUNDRED (P485,600.00) PESOS, including all the improvements, prawns,
milkfishes, crabs and related species thereon as well all fishing equipment,
paraphernalia and accessories. The said amount shall be paid to the Sub-Lessor by
the Sub-Lessees in the following manner, to wit:
A. Three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos upon signing this contract; and
B. One Hundred Eight-Five Thousand Six-Hundred (P185,6000.00) Pesos to be paid
on June 30, 1989.
Clearly, the liability of the sublessees is merely joint. Since the obligation of the
Manuel and Alipio spouses is chargeable against their respective conjugal
partnerships, the unpaid balance of P50,600.00 should be divided into two so that
each couple is liable to pay the amount of P25,300.00.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Bienvenido Manuel and Remedios Manuel
are ordered to pay the amount of P25,300.00, the attorney's fees in the amount of
P10,000.00 and the costs of the suit. The complaint against petitioner is dismissed
without prejudice to the filing of a claim by private respondent in the proceedings for
the settlement of estate of Placido Alipio for the collection of the share of the Alipio
spouses in the unpaid balance of the rent in the amount of P25,300.00.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.