AGUAS v LLEMOS Pursuant to Rule 86, Section 5, actions that are abated by
Petitioner: Maria Aguas, Felix Guardino, Francisco Salinas
Respondents: Hermogenes Llemos (deceased so substituted
by his HEIRS Perpetua, Hermenegildo, Felino and Amado
Llemos)
G.R. No. L-18107; August 30 1962; J. JBL Reyes
DOCTRINE:
If among those enumerated in Rule 86, Section 20, it should
be filed in an estate settlement proceeding, otherwise claimant
will be barred. If under Rule 87, Section 1, these can be filed
against the executor or administrator upon death of defendant.
FACTS
1. Petitoners allegedly received a copy of a petition for a writ
of possession from Llemos. Thus, they went to
Catbalogan, Samar only to be informed that there was
actually no such petition filed.
2. Petitioners filed an action for damages against Llemos
alleging mental anguish and undue embarrassment due to
Llemos action in the CFI of Catbalogan.
3. However, Llemos died before he could answer the
complaint. Petitioenrs sought to include the heirs.
4. CFI of Catbalogan dismissed the case by saying that the
action being for a recovery of money, testate or intestate
proceedings should have been initiated first.
ISSUES
W/n the petitioners can claim against the estate of Llemos?
HELD/RATIO
Yes, they can claim because their claim is not included in
Rule 86, Section 20, and their claim is deemed included in
Rule 87, Section 1. (NOTE: In the case, Rule 86 was stated as
Rule 87 and Rule 87 as Rule 88).
death are: (1) claims for funeral expenses and those for the
last sickness of the decedent; (2) judgments for money; and
(3) "all claims for money against the decedent, arising from
contract, express or implied".
Pursuant to Rule 87, Section 1, actions that survive against a
decedent's executors or administrators are: (1) actions to
recover real and personal property from the estate; (2) actions
to enforce a lien thereon; and (3) actions to recover damages
for an injury to person or property.
The case at bar could fall under (3) in Rule 87, Section 1
because injury to property was deemed to extend to other
wrongs by which personal estate is injured or diminished
(Baker v. Crandall). Here, causing the petitioners to cause
unnecessary expenses is injurious to the petitioners property.
Also, the claims for money stated in Rule 86, which requires
an estate settlement proceeding first before being recognized,
are those arising from contracts. In the case-at-bar, the money
claim is for damages incurred and not from contracts.
DISPOSITION:
Parties actually arrived at an amicable settlement so case
became moot.
NOTE:
I think its related to Rule 3, Section 20 because this provision
requires that if the action for recovery of money arises from
contract and the defendant dies, the case should not be
dismissed and continue until entry of final judgment. So
possible conflict with Rule 86, Section 5?