AURELIA CONTUAN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. FORTUNATA RAMIREZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

These
are two appeals, one taken by the plaintiffs and the other by the
defendants, from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance
of Bulacan, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“The
complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiffs’
right to enforce their claim, if any, in the proper proceedings against
the estate of the deceased Paulino de la Cruz.

“The
counterclaim filed by the defendants is likewise dismissed for
analogous reasons; because, in spite of the fact that they knew that
their deceased father’s estate was under judicial administration, they
did not request the intervention of the administrator thereof; because
they did not present sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim,
having been contented with the testimony of one of them, based on mere
conjectures and on simple disputable deductions.”

The first question to decide in this appeal is procedural in character
and consists in whether or not the herein plaintiffs are justified in
bringing this suit against the defendants.

According to the
ninth paragraph of the complaint, the plaintiffs in the present cause
are: Aurelia Contuan, in her capacity as heiress and judicial
administratrix of the estate left by the deceased partner Wenceslawa de
la Cruz; Cornelia Espinosa, widow of the partner Doroteo de la Cruz,
and the latter’s children named Romana and Jose de la Cruz; Justa
Camacho, widow of the partner Sebastian Remigio, and the latter’s
children named Marciana, Victoria, Fidela, Mariano and Mateo Remigio.
The defendants are: Fortunata Ramirez, widow of Paulino de la Cruz, and
the latter’s children named Amando, Rosario, Santiago, Mariano, Rosa,
Eresmo, Perpetua and Paulina de la Cruz.

The purpose of the
present complaint is to compel the defendants, through judicial
proceedings, to deliver to the herein plaintiffs, respectively, the
shares which corresponded to their respective fathers in the profits of
a partnership formed by and between them and the deceased predecessor
in interest of the defendants, for the exploitation of three fisheries
leased by them, the latter having been the last manager of the business
before his death.

It appears from the records that intestate
proceedings relative to the estate of the deceased Paulino de la Cruz,
predecessor in interest of the herein defendants, are pending and that
an administrator thereof has been appointed.

Without passing
upon the question whether or not the herein plaintiffs, in their
alleged capacity as heirs, respectively, of the deceased Doroteo de la
Cruz and Sebastian Remigio whose properties do not appear to have been
distributed either judicially or extra judicially, have juridical
personality to bring the present action, inasmuch as their claim
against the heirs of the deceased Paulino de la Cruz consists in a sum
of money alleged to be due from the deceased, they cannot bring any
action for the recovery thereof either against the said heirs, there
being a judicial administrator representing the intestate estate of the
deceased (sec. 702, Code of Civil Procedure), nor against the judicial
administrator representing the said estate, inasmuch as it is
prohibited by section 699 of the aforesaid Code, but said claim should
be presented to the committee on claims and appraisal appointed in the
intestate proceedings (sec. 700, id.).

In view of
the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold that
when an intestate estate is under judicial administration, no action
for the recovery of a debt due from the deceased can be brought either
against his heirs, if there is an administrator representing them (sec.
702, Act No. 190), or against the said administrator, it being
prohibited by section 699 of the said Code, but the claim should be
presented to the committee on claims and appraisal appointed in the
intestate proceedings (sec. 700, Act No. 190).

Inasmuch as
the law does not permit the bringing of an action for the recovery of a
debt due from the deceased, while his estate is under judicial
administration, the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the case
originally, nor has this court jurisdiction to review it on appeal.

Wherefore, the cause is hereby dismissed, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.