Purita ALIPIO, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and Romeo Jaring,  Alipio’s husband died before case was instituted. Thus, Rule 3, Sec. 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civ Proc is not
represented by his Atorney-in-Fact Ramon Jaring [2000]
 Jaring (Romeo) was the lessee of a 14.5 hec fishpond in Barito,
Mabuco, Hermosa, Bataan. Lease was for 5 yrs ending on Sep. 12, 1990.
 June 19, 1987 til the end of the lease period, Jaring subleased the
fishpond to sps Alipio and sps Manuel. Stipulated rent: P485,600.00
payable in 2 installments of P300k and P185,600.00. 2nd installment due on
June 30, 1989. They all signed the contract.
 Sublessees failed to pay entire 2nd installment, leaving a balance of
P50,600.00 w/c they failed to pay despite Alipio’s demands. Thus, he filed a
case against said sublessees asking for payment of the balance or
rescission of the contract should they fail to pay the balance.
 Defense of Purita Alipio: petitioned for the dismissal of the case
invoking Rule 3, Sec. 21 of the 1964 Rules of Court1, claiming that such
was applicable since her husband and co-sublessee passed away prior to
the filing of this action. Said rule has been amended by Rule 3, Sec. 20,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure2.
 Trial court: denied Alipio’s petition. Ratio: she was a party to the
contract & should be independently impleaded together w/the Manuel sps.
Death of her husband merely resulted in his exclusion from the case.
Petitioner & Manuels ordered to pay balance + P10k atty’s fees and costs of
suit.
 CA: dismissed appeal. Rule invoked is not applicable. The action for
recovery of a sum of money does not survive the death of the defendant,
thus the remaining defendants cannot avoid the action by claiming that
such death totally extinguished their obligation. When the action is solidary,
creditor may bring his action against any of the debtors obligated in
solidum. Alipio’s liability is independent of & separate from her husband’s.
(Climaco vs. Siy Uy, Imperial vs. David, and Agacoili vs. Vda de Agcaoili)
Issues & Ratio:
1. WON a creditor can sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an
ordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable
against the conjugal partnership. – NO. Proper remedy would be to file a
claim in the settlement of the decedent’s estate or if none has been
commenced, he can file a petition either for the issuance of letters of
administration or for the allowance of will, depending on whether its
testate/intestate. No shortcut by lumping claim against Alipios w/those
against the Manuels.
1
When the action is for recovery of money, debt or interest thereon, and the defendant dies before
final judgment in the CFI, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided in
these rules.
2
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 w/c 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.
applicable since it only applies to defendants who die during the pendency of the case.
 CC Art. 161 (1) provides that the obligation of the Alipios is chargeable against their conjugal partnership since it was
contracted by the spouses for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. When petitioner’s spouse died, their CP was dissolved &
debts chargeable against it are to be paid in the settlement of estate proceedings in accordance w/Rule 73, Sec. 2 w/c provides
that the community property will be inventoried, administered, & liquidated and debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate
proceedings of the deceased spouse.
 Calma vs.Tanedo: No complaint for collection of indebtedness chargeable to the CP can be brought against the
surviving spouse. Claim must be made in the proceedings for the liquidation & settlement of the CP. Surviving spouse’s powers of
admin ceases & is passed on to court-appointed administrator. Affirmed in Ventura vs. Militante where Court held that lack of
liquidation proceedings does not mean that the CP continues. Creditor may apply for letters of admin in his capacity as a principal
creditor.
 Cases invoked by CA are not applicable, being based on different set of facts. In Climaco, claim was not against the
CP & it did not survive the death of the defendant but not as to the remaining defendant. Imperial, on the other hand, involved
spouses who were solidarily liable, thus, surviving spouse could be independently sued in an ordinary action for the enforcement
of the entire obligation.
 Note that for marriages governed by CPG, obligations entered into by sps are chargeable vs their CP & partnership
is primarily bound for the repayments. They’ll be impleaded as representatives of the CP and concept of joint/solidary liability does
not apply. At best, it will not be solidary but joint.
2. WON trial court properly ordered Manuels & petitioner to pay the balance w/o specifying whether it should be paid
jointly or solidarily. – NO. It should have specified the debtors’ liability.
 CC Art. 1207: Concurrence of 2 or more creditors or 2 or more debtors in one & the same obligation does not imply a solidary
liability. Solidary liability only arises when the obligation expressly so states or when the law or nature of the obligation requires
solidarity. Otherwise, it’s presumed to be joint, w/the debt divided into as many equal shares as there are debtors, each debt
distinct from one another.
 Should lessees/sublessees refuse to vacate leased property after expiration of the leased period despite due demands, they
can be held solidarily liable to pay for the use of the property being joint tortfeasors. However, there’s’ no allegation that
sublessees refused to vacate the fishpond after the expiration of the term.
 Petitioner does not contend that nature of the lease w/more than 2 sublessees result into a solidary liability. Rather, contract
provides that rent will be paid to the sub-lessor by the sub-lessees, clearly indicating that liability is merely joint.
 Since obligation of both couples is chargeable against their respective CPs, balance of P50,600.00 should be divided into 2
so that each couple is liable to pay P25,300.00
Holding: Petition is granted.
1. Manuels ordered to pay P25,300.00 + atty’s fees of P10k and costs of suit.
2. Complaint against ipio dismissed w/o prejudice to filing of claim by Jaring in proceedings for the settlement of deceased’s
estate for the collection of the share of the Alipio sps amounting to P25,300.00