ANTONIA FERRER, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE S. LOPEZ AND MARIANO SANTOS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

It appears from the record that Patricio Aliño was appointed administrator of
the estate of his late wife, Tasiana Ferrer. In the course of his
administration, the court declared that as such he had contracted obligations in
favor of the heirs of Tasiana Ferrer to the extent of P9,504.91 which the said
court held must be covered by the bonds he had given upon assuming the
administration, because he had acted without judicial authority in contracting
those obligations.

According to the scheme of partition, Antonia Ferrer, one of Tasiana Ferrer’s
heirs, was to receive for her portion a credit of P1,188.12 against the
administrator, Patricio Aliño included among the obligations mentioned above,
which he had incurred.

Before this credit was satisfied, Patricio Aliño died and was substituted by
a new judicial administrator, Eutiquio Santa Cruz, who presented the plaintiff’s
claim before the committee on claims and appraisals with reference to Patricio
Alino’s intestate estate. But the claim was not passed upon because one of the
members of that committee died, and when his successor was appointed, he
required Tasiana Ferrer’s administrator to file the claim again, and as this was
not done, the committee reported to the court without making any mention of
plaintiff Antonia Ferrer’s credit.

A petition was filed with the court to extend the period of the committee’s
sessions, but it was denied. At the hearing, Antonia Ferrer presented the
present complaint against Jose S. Lopez and Mariano Santos, Patricio Alino’s
sureties. The latter demurred on the ground that the plaintiff lacked
personality for such action, and that the facts alleged in the complaint are not
sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Upon the demurrer being overruled,
the defendants answered with a general denial of the allegations in the
complaint and by way of special defense state:

“(a) That the credit mentioned in paragraph IX of the complaint is
against the intestate estate of Patricio Alifio, case No. 1906 of the Court of
First Instance of Batangas.

“(b) That this court, in civil case No. 20022, authorized the
judicial administrator, Eutiquio Santa Cruz, to file such credit with the
committee on claims and appraisals with reference to the intestate estate of
Patricio Alifio, as the law provides, which neither said administrator nor the
heirs of Tasiana Ferrer, did, when the credit was adjudicated to them, in
payment of their respective shares in the inheritance.

“(c) That this court only makes the late administrator, Patricio
Aliño, liable with his bond for the credit aforesaid, if the coparceners fail to
pay it, who are the real debtors of the estate of Tasiana Ferrer.

“(d) That said coparceners do not deny and are willing to pay their
debts; but the present administrator, Eutiquio Santa Cruz, has not taken the
trouble to collect from them, nor included their debts in the credits of the
estate.

“(e) That for this reason, this court has in several orders refused
to hold that the estate of Patricio Aliño is indebted in the amounts composing
said credit, as said administrator, Eutiquio Santa Cruz, contended.”

After hearing the case, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff
jointly and severally, the amount of P1,188.12, with legal interest from the
filing of the complaint, that is, April 15, 1930, until fully paid, plus the
costs.

From this judgment the defendants appealed, and in their brief assign the
following errors:

“1. The lower court erred in overruling the defendants’ demurrer to the
complaint.

“2. The lower court also erred in holding that the fact that the
administrator of Tasiana Ferrer’s estate did not file the claim with the
committee on claims and appraisals appointed in the intestate proceedings of
Patricio AliNo, within the period given him for that purpose and that such claim
has not been passed upon by the committee, does not and cannot bar the
plaintiff’s action in this case against the defendants as sureties of said
administrator, so long as such action has not prescribed.

“3. The trial court also erred in holding that the defendants have made no
allegation touching the prescription of the plaintiff’s action.

“4. The lower court likewise erred in holding that even apart from Patricio
Aliño, the plaintiff’s action against the sureties of the latter, can and should
be maintained.

“5. Lastly, the court erred in rendering judgment against the
defendants.”

The fundamental question raised in this appeal deals with the liability of
the principal obligor, Patricio AliNo which according to the appellants, has
been extinguished, because the plaintiff’s claim was not filed with the new
committee on claims and appraisals of such deceased administrator’s intestate
estate, in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, and such being
the case, the sureties’ liability, being of its nature accessory, was also
extinguished.

It should be noted that according to the record of the intestate proceedings
of Tasiana Ferrer, from which the present litigation originated, a motion of
reconsideration was filed with reference to the order authorizing the heirs of
said intestacy jto collect the debt of the late Patricio AliNo through judicial
channels, which had been contracted on the occasion of the exercise of his
office as judicial administrator. In denying this motion, the court said, among
other things, the following:

“The other ground of the motion is untenable. It nowhere appears that the
administrator and the heirs of this intestacy waived their right to the credit
against the intestacy of the late Patricio Alino and his sureties, resulting
from the deficit or balance against his administration account. The order
authorizing the heirs to exercise their action against the sureties of said
decedent to recover the aforesaid credit, is just, legal, and must be upheld.
The heirs of this intestacy may collect the debt contracted by Patricio Aliño in
these proceedings as judicial administrator either by filing a claim with the
committee appointed in the intestate proceedings with reference to his estate,
or, by bringing an action against his sureties, who bound themselves solidarily
by virtue of the bond they executed for the faithful performance of the duties
of said deceased as judicial administrator of this intestate estate of the late
Tasiana Ferrer.”

Subsequent to this order, the plaintiff, Antonia Ferrer, one of the heirs,
filed her action against the defendant sureties for the amount here in
litigation, which had been adjudicated to her in the partition of Tasiana
Ferrer’s estate. But setting this order aside, it appears that the administrator
Eutiquio Santa Cruz filed Antonia Ferrer’s claim with the committee on claims
and appraisals appointed by the court in the intestate proceedings of Patricio
Aliño, but the committee did not pass upon it because one of the members of the
committee had died, and another was named in his stead, whereupon the committee
required said administrator, Euticfuio Santa Cruz, to renew his claim, but he
failed to do so.

The appellants maintain that the plaintiff’s claim, not having been filed
with the committee, cannot be the subject matter of the present complaint. This
contention is untenable. The claim has been filed with the committee in due
time. And “if a valid presentation of a claim has once been made, a change in
the administration by the appointment of another representative does not
necessitate a second presentation.” (24 C. J., 319, citing Floyd vs.
Clayton, 67 Ala., 265; McHardy vs. McHardy, 7 Fla., 301; Miller
vs. Lewiston Nat. Bank, 18 Ida., 124; 108,Pac, 901; Cochran
vs. Germania Bank, 10 Ky. L., 449; Matter of Hallenbeck, 119 App. Div.,
757; 104 N. Y. S., 568 [mod. on other grounds 195 N. Y., 143; 88 N. E., 16; 133
Am. S. R., 782]; and Parks vs. Lubbock [Civ. A.], 50 S. W., 466.) With
greater reason may it be said that the change of one of the members of the
committee on claims and appraisals does not necessitate a second filing of the
claim.

The appellants admit that the committee made no mention of Antonia Ferrer’s
claim in the report submitted. Whether or not the latter should have appealed
from the report of the committee, is a matter that has not been presented to
this court. It is true that section 695 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides
that one having a claim against a deceased’s estate that must be decided by the
committee, who, after the publication of the notice required, fails to file it,
shall lose the right to enforce said claim or to plead it in counterclaim in any
case, except those specified in the Code (with reference to contingent
claims).

But the court having held that the amount in question is a part of the debt
of the later administrator, Patricio Alino, we believe its filing with the
committee was not for the purpose of having said body decide whether or not it
was to be accepted, but merely for purposes of classification. C2~4 C. J., 332;
Brennan vs. Brennan, 65 Cal., 517; 4 Pac, 561; Darling vs.
McDonald, 101 111., 370; Manning vs. Mayes, 79 Tex., 653; 15 S. W., 638; Ryans
vs. Boogher, 169 Mo., 673; 69 S. W., 1048; In re Richardson, 97 Wash.,
488; 166 Pac, 776.) And further, inasmuch as the claim in question was duly
filed with the committee, this legal provision is not applicable. It follows
from all this that the obligation of the later administrator, Patricio Alino, as
principal, was not extinguished, and therefore, the accessory obligation of the
sureties was likewise not extinguished.

We are therefore of the opinion that, as the principal debtor’s obligation is
valid and has not been satisfied by his estate, and as the defendant sureties
bound themselves solidarily, article 1144 of the Civil Code is applicable, which
provides as follows:

“The creditor may sue any of the solidary debtors or all of them
simultaneously. An action instituted against one shall not be a bar to those
which may be subsequently brought against the others, as long as the debt has
not been entirely satisfied.” (Molina vs. De la Riva, 7 Phil., 345;
Chinese Chamber of Commerce vs. Pua Te Ching, 16 Phil., 406; Inchausti
& Co. vs. Yulo, 34 Phil., 978.)

Having reached this conclusion, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the other
errors assigned by the appellants. And in view of the foregoing considerations,
we affirm the judgment appealed from, without prejudice to any right the
defendant sureties may have against the heirs of Patricio Aliño.

With costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez,
Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.