Ledesma vs. McLachlin

8/9/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME066
[No. 44837. November 23, 1938]

SOCORRO LEDESMA and ANA QUITCO LEDESMA,
plaintiff's and appellees, vs. CONCHITA McLACHLIN ET
AL., defendants and appellants.
1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION FILING OF CLAIM
AGAINST A DECEASED SON BEFORE THE
COMMITTED ON CLAIMS AND APPRAISAL IN THE
INTESTATE OF HIS FATHER: PRESCRIPTION OF
ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE CLAIM.The
filing of a claim before the committee on claims and
apraisal appointed in the intestate of the father, for a
monetary obligation contracted by a son who died before
him, does not suspend the presciptive period of the judicial
action for the recovery of said indebtedness.
2. ID. ID. ID.The claim for the payment of an
indebtedness contracted by a deceased person cannot. be
filed for its collection before the committee on claims and
appraisal. appointed in the intestate of his father, and the
properties inherited from the latter by the children of said
deceased do not answer for the payment of the
indebtedness contracted during the lifetime of said person.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Occidental Negros. Bejasa, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Adriano T. de la Cruz for appellants.
Simeon Bitanga for appellees.
VlLLAREAL, J.:
This case is before us by virtue of an appeal taken by the
defendants Conchita McLachlin, Lorenzo Quitco, jr.,
Sabina Quitco. Rafael Quitco and Marcela Quitco, from the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros,
the dispositive part of which reads:
"For the foregoing considerations, the court renders judgment in
this case declaring Ana Quitco Ledesma an acknowledged natural
daughter of the deceased Lorenzo M. Quitco, for legal purposes,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f0a4a51ae362903003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/6
8/9/2016
but absolving the defendants as to the prayer in the first cause of

action that the said Ana Quitco Ledesma be declared entitled to
share in the properties left by the deceased Eusebio Quitco.
"As to the second cause of action, the said defendants are
548
548
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ledesma vs. Mclachlin et al.
ordered to pay to the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma, jointly and

severally, only the sum of one thousand five hundred pesos
(P1,500) ,with legal interest thereon from the filing of this
complaint until fully paid. No pronouncement is made as to the
costs. So ordered."
In support of their appeal, the appellants assign the

following errors allegedly committed by the trial court in
its aforesaid decision:
"1. That the trial court erred in holding that the action
for the recovery of the sum of P1,500, representing
the last installment of the note Exhibit C has not
yet prescribed.
"2. That the trial court erred in holding that the prop
erty inherited by the defendants from their
deceased grandfather by the right of representation
is subject to the debts and obligations of their
deceased father who died without any property
whatsoever.
"3. That the trial court erred in condemning the
defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff
Socorro Ledesma the sum of P1,500."
The only facts to be considered in the determination of the
legal questions raised in this appeal are those set out in the
appealed decision, which have been established at the trial,
namely:
"In the year 1916, the plaintiflf Socorro Ledesma lived maritally
with Lorenzo M. Quitco, while the latter was still single, of which
relation. lasting until the year 1921, was? born a daughter who is
the other plaintiff Ana Quitco Ledesma. In 1921, it seems that the
relation between Socorro Ledesma and Lorenzo M. Quitco came to
an end. but the latter executed a deed (Exhibit A), acknowledging
the plaintiff Ana Quitco Ledesma as his natural daughter and on
January 21, 1922. he issued in favor of the plaintiff Socorro
Ledesma a promissory note (Exhibit C), of the following tenor:
2/6
8/9/2016
" P2,000. For value received T promise to pay Miss Socorro

Ledesma the sum of two thousand pesos (P2,000). Philipnine
currency under the following terms: Two hun
549
VOL. 66, NOVEMBER 23, 1938
549
dred and fifty pesos (P250) to be paid on the first day of March.
1922: another two hundred and fifty pesos (P250) to be paid on
the first day of November. 1922 the remaining one thousand and
five hundred (P1,500) to be paid two years from the date of the
execution of this note. San Enrique, Occ. Negros, P. I., Jan. 21.
1922."
"Subsequently, Lorenzo M. Quitco married the defendant
Conchita McLachlin. with whom be had four children. who are the
other defendants. On March 9, 1930, Lorenzo M. Quitco died
(Exhibit 5), and, still later, that is, on December 15, 1932, his
father Eusebio Quitco also died, and as the latter left real and
personal properties upon his death, administration proceedings of
said properties were instituted in' this court, the said case being
known as the lntestate of the deceased Eusebio Quitco/ civil case
No. 6153 of this court.
"Upon the institution of the intestate of the deceased Eusebio
Quitco and the appointment of the committee on claims and
appraisal, the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma, on August 26, 1935, filed
before said committee the aforequoted promissory note for
payment, and the commissioners, upon receipt of said promissory
note, instead of passing upon it, elevated the same to this court en
consulta (Exhibit F), and as the Honorable Jose Lopez Vito,
presiding over the First Branch, returned said consulta and
refrained from giving his opinion thereon (Exhibit C), the
aforesaid commissioners on claims and appraisal, alleging lack of
jurisdiction to pass upon the claim, denied the same (Exhibit H).
"On November 14, 1933 (Exhibit I), the court issued an order of
declaration of heirs in the intestate of the deceased Eusebio
Quitco, and as Ana Quitco Ledesma was not included among the
declared heirs, Socorro Ledesma, as mother of Ana Quitco
Ledesma, asked for the reconsideration of said order, a petition
which the court denied. From the order denying the said petition
no appeal was taken, and in lieu thereof there was filed the
complaint which gives rise to this case."
550
550
3/6
8/9/2016
The first question to be decided in this appeal, raised in the

first assignment of alleged error, is whether or not the
action to recover the sum of P1,500, representing the last
installment for the payment of the promissory note Exhibit
C, has prescribed.
According to the promissory note Exhibit C, executed by
the deceased Lorenzo M. Quitco, on January 21, 1922, the
last installment of P1,500 should be paid two years from
the date of the execution of said promissory note, that is, on
January 21, 1924. The complaint in the present case was
filed on June 26, 1934, that is, more than ten years after
the expiration of the said period. The fact that the plaintiff
Socorro Ledesma filed her claim, on August 26, 1933, with
the committee on claims and appraisal appointed in the
intestate of Eusebio Quitco, does not suspend the running
of the prescriptive period of the judicial action for the
recovery of said debt, because the claim for the unpaid
balance of the amount of the promissory note should not
have been presented in the intestate of Eusebio Quitco, 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.
More than ten years having thus elapsed from the
expiration of the period for the payment of said debt of
P1.500, the action for its recovery has prescribed under
section 43, No. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The first assignment of alleged error is, therefore, well
founded.
As to the second assignment of alleged error, consisting
in that the trial court erred in holding that the properties
inherited by the defendants from their deceased
grandfather by representation are subject to the payment
of debts and obligations of their deceased father, who died
without leaving any property, while it is true that under
the provisions of articles 924 to 927 of the Civil Code, a
child rep
551
VOL. 66, NOVEMBER 23, 1938
551
4/6
8/9/2016
resents his father or mother who died before him in the

properties of his grandfather or grandmother, 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. The herein defendants, as heirs of
Eusebio Quitco, in representation of their father Lorenzo
M. Quitco, are not bound to pay the indebtedness of their
said father from whom they did not inherit anything.
The second assignment of alleged error is also
wellfounded.
Being a mere sequel of the first two assignments of
alleged errors, the third assignment of error is also well
founded.
For the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion
and so hold: (1) That the filing of a claim before the
committee on claims and appraisal, appointed in the
intestate of the father, for a monetary obligation contracted
by a son who died before him, does not suspend the
prescriptive period of the judicial action for the recovery of
said indebtedness (2) that the claim for the payment of an
indebtedness contracted by a deceased' person cannot be
filed for its collection before the committee on claims and
appraisal, appointed in the intestate of his father, and the
properties inherited from the latter by the children of said
deceased do not answer for the payment of the
indebtedness contracted during the lifetime of said person.
Wherefore, the appealed judgment is reversed, and the
defendants are absloved from the complaint, with the costs
to the appellees. So ordered.
Avancea, C. J.,
Concepcion, JJ., concur.
Imperial,
Diaz,
Laurel,
and
Judgment reversed.
552
552

Price vs. Ybaes et al.
5/6
8/9/2016
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
6/6

Ledesma vs. McLachlin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ledesma vs. McLachlin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ledesma vs. McLachlin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/9/2016

[No. 44837. November 23, 1938]

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

but absolving the defendants as to the prayer in the first cause of

PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

ordered to pay to the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma, jointly and

In support of their appeal, the appellants assign the

" P2,000. For value received T promise to pay Miss Socorro

VOL. 66, NOVEMBER 23, 1938