Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > July 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17175 July 31, 1962 - RICARDO M. GUTIERREZ v. MILAGROS BARRETO-DATU:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17175. July 31, 1962.]

RICARDO M. GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MILAGROS BARRETO-DATU, Executrix of the Testate Estate of the deceased MARIA GERARDO VDA. DE BARRETO, Defendant-Appellee.

Teofilo Sison and Mariano B. Bustos & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Deogracias T. Reyes and Luison & Associates, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS; CLAIMS REQUIRED TO BE PRESENTED AGAINST DECEDENT’S ESTATE; CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM BEACH OF LEASE CONTRACT. — The word "claims" as used in statutes requiring the presentation of claims against a decedent’s estate is generally construed to mean debts or demands of a pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime and could have been reduced to simple money judgments; and among these are those founded upon contract, 21 Am. Jur. 579. In the case at bar, the claim is for damages arising from a breach of a lease contract allegedly committed by the decedent. It falls squarely under section 5, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court.

2. ID.; ID.; ACTIONS THAT MAY BE INSTITUTED AGAINST EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS. — The only actions that may be instituted against the executor or administrator are those to recover real or personal property from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal. Rule 88, Sec. 1. The instant suit is not one of them.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Ricardo M. Gutierrez appeals from the orders of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (1) dismissing his complaint against Lucia Milagros Barreto-Datu, as executrix of the estate of the deceased Maria Gerardo Vda. de Barreto, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal.

The relevant facts alleged by appellant are as follows: In 1940 Maria Gerardo Vda. de Barreto, owner of 371 hectares of fishpond lands in Pampanga, leased the same to appellant Gutierrez for a term to expire on May 1, 1947. On November 1, 1941, pursuant to a decision of the Department of Public Works rendered after due investigation, the dikes of the fishponds were opened at several points, resulting in their destruction and in the loss of great quantities of fish inside, to the damage and prejudice of the lessee.

In 1956, the lessor having died in 1948 and the corresponding testate proceeding to settle her estate having been opened (Sp. Proc. No. 5002, C.F.I., Manila), Gutierrez filed a claim therein for two items: first, for the sum of P32,000.00 representing advance rentals he had paid to the decedent (the possession of the leased property, it is alleged, having been returned to her after the opening of the dikes ordered by the government); and second, for the sum of P60,000.00 as damages in the concept of unearned profits, that is, profits which the claimant failed to realize because of the breach of the lease contract allegedly committed by the lessor.

On June 7, 1957 appellant commenced the instant ordinary civil action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City branch) against the executrix of the testate estate for the recovery of the same amount of P60,000.00 referred to as the second item claimed in the administration proceeding. The complaint specifically charges the decedent Maria Gerardo Vda. de Barreto, as lessor, with having violated a warranty in the lease contract against any damages the lessee might suffer by reason of the claim of the government that several rivers and creeks of the public domain were included in the fishponds.

In July 1957 appellant amended his claim in the testate proceeding by withdrawing therefrom the item of P60,000.00, leaving only the one for refund of advance rentals in the sum of P32,000.00.

After the issues were joined in the present case with the filing of the defendant’s answer, together with a counterclaim, and after two postponements of the trial were granted, the second of which was in January 1958, the court dismissed the action for abandonment by both parties in an order dated July 31, 1959. Appellant moved to reconsider; appellee opposed the motion; and after considerable written argument the court, on March 7, 1960, denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that the claim should have been prosecuted in the testate proceeding and not by ordinary civil action.

Appellant submits his case on this lone legal question: whether or not his claim for damages based on unrealized profits is a money claim against the estate of the deceased Maria Gerardo vda. de Barreto within the purview of Rule 87, Section 5. This section states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed, barred; exception. — All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses of the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in such action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim had been presented directly before the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be approved at their present value."cralaw virtua1aw library

The word "claims" as used in statutes requiring the presentation of claims against a decedent’s estate is generally construed to mean debts or demands of a pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime and could have been reduced to simple money judgments; and among these are those founded upon contract. 21 Am. Jur. 579. The claim in this case is based on contract — specifically, on a breach thereof. It falls squarely under section 5 of Rule 87. "Upon all contracts by the decedent broken during his lifetime, even though they were personal to the decedent in liability, the personal representative is answerable for the breach out of the assets." 3 Schouler on Wills, Executors and Administrators, 6th Ed., 2395. A claim for breach of a covenant in a deed of the decedent must be presented under a statute requiring such presentment of all claims grounded on contract. Id 2461; Clayton v. Dinwoody, 93 P. 723; James v. Corvin, 51 P. 2nd 689. 1

The only actions that may be instituted against the executor or administrator are those to recover real or personal property from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal. Rule 88, section 1. The instant suit is not one of them.

Appellant invokes Gavin v. Melliza, 84 Phil., 794, in support of his contention that this action is proper against the executrix. The citation is not in point. The claim therein, which was filed in the testate proceeding, was based upon a breach of contract committed by the executrix herself, in dismissing the claimant as administrator of the hacienda of the deceased. While the contract was with the decedent, its violation was by the executrix and hence personal to her. Besides, the claim was for indemnity in the form of a certain quantity of palay every year for the unexpired portion of the term of the contract. The denial of the claim was affirmed by this Court on the grounds that it was not a money claim and that it arose after the decedent’s demise, placing it outside the scope of Rule 87, Section 5.

The orders appealed from are affirmed, with costs against Appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Plaintiff’s claim arose from a breach of a covenant in the deed. It is very clearly expressed by the statute that all claims arising on contracts whether due, not due, or contingent, must be presented. The only exception made by the statute is that a mortgage or lien "against the property of the estate subject thereto" may be enforced without first presenting a claim to the executor or administrator "where all recourse against any other property of the estate is expressly waived in the complaint." But this was not an action to enforce a lien. It was not one seeking to have the claim satisfied out of specific property of the estate, or to subject any particular property of the estate to the satisfaction thereof. Clayton v. Dinwoody, 93 P. 723.

The claim for damages for the unexpired portion of the lease is not an obligation incurred by the administratrix in the course of her administration of the estate. It arises out of a contractual obligation incurred by Louis Johnson and is governed by the statute of non-claim. By the terms of the lease, he obligated himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to pay $4,860 for the premises for a term of five years, covering the time involved in this action. A claim for damages for a breach of that contract arises out of that obligation requiring as prerequisite to a suit thereon, that the claim be served on the administratrix and filed with the clerk of court. James v. Corvin, 51 P (2d) 689.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 512 July 7, 1962 - ESTEBAN DEGAMO v. TRANQUILlNO O. CALO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17858-9 July 13, 1962 - MANUEL S. CAMUS v. PRICE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16176 July 19, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISMAEL LAMPITOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17146 July 20, 1962 - IN RE: KHO ENG POE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-13341 July 21, 1962 - IN RE: JUSTINO DEE CU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16925 July 24, 1962 - FABIAN PUGEDA v. RAFAEL TRIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16959 July 24, 1962 - DONATA MONTEMAYOR v. EDUARDO D. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. L-17024 July 24, 1962 - GAPAN FARMER’S COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC. v. FE PARIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17990 July 24, 1962 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN CARLOS, PANGASINAN v. JESUS P. MORFE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13045 July 30, 1962 - IN RE: HAO SU SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-13654 July 30, 1962 - PROVINCIAL TREASURER, ET AL. v. JOSE AZCONA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17191 July 30, 1962 - JOSE PEREZ CARDENAS v. PEDRO CAMUS

  • G.R. No. L-17295 July 30, 1962 - ANG PUE & COMPANY, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

  • G.R. No. L-17508 July 30, 1962 - ROMEO ALMODIEL v. RAMON BLANCO, ET, AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17735 July 30, 1962 - CONRADO VICTORINO, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVO ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. L-18496 July 30, 1962 - JOSE L. GONZALES v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. L-363 July 31, 1962 - IN RE: DIOSDADO Q. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. L-10431 July 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA TONDEÑA INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12687 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMITERIO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13717 31 July 31, 1962 - KOA GUI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14717 July 31, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. CARMEN PREYSLER VDA. DE GARRIZ

  • G.R. No. L-14735 July 31, 1962 - LAO TECK SING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14753 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CUSTODIO REGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14986 July 31, 1962 - CORNELIO AMARO, ET AL. v. AMBROCIO SUMANGUIT

  • G.R. No. L-14990 July 31, 1962 - FLORENCIA PICCIO VDA. DE YUSAY, ET AL. v. LILIA POLI YUSAY-GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-15241 July 31, 1962 - SOLEDAD TAN v. CARLOS DIMAYUGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15749 July 31, 1962 - JOSEPHINE COTTON, ET AL. v. EUGENIO S. BALTAO

  • G.R. No. L-15498 July 31, 1962 - LUCAS ROQUE, ET AL. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16050 July 31, 1962 - MANUEL GRIÑEN v. FILEMON R. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16306 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-16917 July 31, 1962 - PLARIDEL SOTTO v. QUINTILLANA SAMSON

  • G.R. No. L-16946 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO I. VENTURA

  • G.R. No. L-16968 July 31, 1962 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CONCEPCION MINING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17083 July 31, 1962 - TEODORICA REINARES v. JOSE ARRASTIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17165 July 31, 1962 - EMMA R. GENIZA, ET AL. v. HENRY SY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17175 July 31, 1962 - RICARDO M. GUTIERREZ v. MILAGROS BARRETO-DATU

  • G.R. No. L-17229 July 31, 1962 - TOMAS TY TION, ET AL. v. MARSMAN & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17283 July 31, 1962 - ILOILO DOCK & ENGINEERING CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17366 July 31, 1962 - ALFREDO FRIAS, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO ESQUIVEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17427 July 31, 1962 - RODRIGO ACOSTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17441 July 31, 1962 - WELGO DICHOSO, ET AL. v. LAURA ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17483 July 31, 1962 - JOSE AGBULOS v. JOSE C. ALBERTO

  • G.R. No. L-17529 July 31, 1962 - JOSE V. NERI v. LIBRADO C. LIM

  • G.R. Nos. L-17608-09 July 31, 1962 - VICTORIANA SAGUCIO v. ADRIANO BULOS

  • G.R. No. L-17683 July 31, 1962 - WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER v. C.N. HODGES

  • G.R. No. L-17716 July 31, 1962 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. A. D. SANTOS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18099 and L-18136 July 31, 1962 - MARIANO CORPUZ v. BENJAMIN PADILLA

  • G.R. No. L-18175 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEBASTIAN LARGO

  • G.R. No. L-18412 July 31, 1962 - JOSE SANTOS v. CECILlA LOPEZ VDA. DE CERDENOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18733 July 31, 1962 - FELIPE B. PAREJA v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18814 July 31, 1962 - ANACLETO P. NAVARRO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-19022 July 31, 1962 - BENJAMIN P. PALOMIQUE v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19440 July 31, 1962 - CESAR CLIMACO, ET AL. v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19597 July 31, 1962 - CESAR CLIMACO, ET AL. v. MANUEL P. BARCELONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14129 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO MANANTAN

  • G.R. No. L-15858 July 31, 1962 - DY LAM GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.