RUFO MASECAMPO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. PABLO MASECAMPO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Masecampo versus Masecampo

The Case

This is the case of Masecampo versus Masecampo, decided in July 1908. Rufo Masecampo sued Pablo Masecampo to compel the latter to recognize him as his natural son. The action was brought under the old Civil Code, and the demand for recognition was filed while the alleged father was still alive. The case matters because the father died shortly after the complaint was filed, and the question became whether the death of the defendant abates an action for recognition already commenced. The Supreme Court answered that it does not, and the case is a foundational ruling on the survival of actions and on the right to establish filiation.

Procedural History

Rufo Masecampo, through his representative, filed a written complaint in the Court of First Instance against Pablo Masecampo, praying that the defendant be compelled to recognize the plaintiff as his natural son. The defendant was duly summoned, but his attorney appeared and moved to dismiss on the ground that the defendant had died in the early part of November 1905. The plaintiff then asked permission to continue the action against the heirs or the executor of the deceased defendant. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's motion because the heirs or executor had not been notified, and later, on the nineteenth of January 1906, it dismissed the case with costs against the plaintiff. The plaintiff excepted and filed a bill of exceptions, and the case was brought to the Supreme Court in the ordinary course.

Facts

Rufo Masecampo alleged that he was a resident of Opon, Cebu, and the natural son of Paulina Godinez and Pablo Masecampo. He claimed that at the time of his conception his parents were single and there was no impediment to their marriage, and that he was born in November 1879. When he was eight or nine years old, his father, the defendant, took him into his house, cared for him, nourished him, and treated him as his own child, caused him to use the defendant's surname, and provided for his education from 1890 to 1894. In that last year the plaintiff went to live with his mother, thus quitting his father's side.

The plaintiff then brought an action for recognition. The defendant was summoned, but he died in the early part of November 1905, a few days after the action was brought, and before he could answer within the term allowed by law. His attorney moved to dismiss the case on that ground.

The plaintiff sought to continue the action against the heirs or the executor of the deceased. The trial court refused, dismissed the complaint, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs.

Issues

• Whether or not the death of the defendant father, while the action for recognition was pending, abates the action and requires the dismissal of the complaint.
• Whether or not the plaintiff may continue the action already commenced against the executor, administrator, or other legal representative of the deceased defendant.

Applicable Provisions

Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

Sec. 119. Death of party.—In case a party to an action dies while the action is pending, the action shall not abate by reason thereof, but the court on motion may allow the action or proceeding to be continued by or against his executor, administrator, or other legal representative, and the judgment, if it be for the payment of costs and against the executor, administrator, or other legal representative, shall be that he pay in due course of administration: Provided, nevertheless, That if the action is for the recovery of money, debt, or damages against the deceased, it shall be discontinued, and the claim thereafter be prosecuted as provided in section six hundred and eighty-six.

This provision governs whether the action survives the death of the defendant and may be continued against his legal representative.

The decision also refers to articles 135 and 137 of the Civil Code as the basis of the action for recognition, but it does not quote them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the subsequent death of the father is not a bar to the action commenced during his lifetime by one who claimed to be his natural son. The action may survive against the executor, administrator, or any other legal representative of the testate or intestate succession. The Court reasoned that the death of the defendant while the action was pending could not have given rise to or required the dismissal of the complaint, according to Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On the second issue, the Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to continue the action already commenced, in accordance with Section 119. Whatever reasons the executor or legal representative had for opposing the recognition claimed, the matter must be discussed and decided in a proper action. The exercise of a lawful right before the courts of justice by means of a formal action, terminating in a final decision, cannot lawfully be impeded.

Doctrine

An action for recognition of natural filiation, commenced during the lifetime of the alleged father, is not abated by his subsequent death. Under Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the action survives and may be continued against the executor, administrator, or other legal representative of the deceased's succession. The right to establish filiation is a lawful right that cannot be defeated by the death of the defendant after the action has been filed. The only exception in the provision concerns actions for the recovery of money, debt, or damages against the deceased, which must be discontinued and prosecuted as a claim against the estate.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint and held that the plaintiff is entitled to continue the action already commenced, in accordance with Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the death of the alleged father after an action for recognition is commenced does not abate the action, which may be continued against his legal representative. Examiners use this case to test the rule on survival of actions and the exception for money claims against a deceased defendant.