SOCCORO LEDESMA AND ANA QUITCO LEDESMA, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. CONCHITA MCLACHLIN ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This case is before us by virtue of an appeal taken by the defendants
Conchita McLachlin, Lorenzo Quitco, jr., Sabina Quitco, Rafael Quitco
and Marcela Quitco, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Occidental Negros, the dispositive part of which reads:

“For
the foregoing considerations, the court renders judgment in this case
declaring Ana Quitco Ledesma an acknowledged natural daughter of the
deceased Lorenzo M. Quitco, for legal purposes, but absolving the
defendants of to the prayer in the first cause of action that the said
Ana Quitco Ledesma be declared entitled to share in the properties left
by the deceased Eusebio Quitco.

“As to the second cause of
action, the said defendants are ordered to pay to the plaintiff Socorro
Ledesma, jointly and severally, only the sum of one thousand five
hundred pesos (P1,500), with legal interest thereon from the filing of
this complaint until fully paid. No pronouncement is made as to the
costs. So ordered.”

In support of their
appeal, the appellants assign the following errors allegedly committed
by the trial court in its aforesaid decision:

“1.
That the trial court erred in holding that the action for the recovery
of the sum of P1,500, representing the last installment of the note
Exhibit C has not yet prescribed.

“2. That the trial court
erred in holding that the property inherited by the defendants from
their deceased grandfather by the right of representation is subject to
the debts and obligations of their deceased father who died without any
property whatsoever.

“3. That the trial court erred in
condemning the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff
Socorro Ledesma the sum of P1,500.”

The
only facts to be considered in the determination of the legal questions
raised in this appeal are those set out in the appealed decision, which
have been established at the trial, namely:

“In
the year 1916, the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma lived maritally with
Lorenzo M. Quitco, while the latter was still single, of which
relation, lasting until the year 1921, was born a daughter who is the
other plaintiff Ana Quitco Ledesma. In 1921, it seems that the relation
between Socorro Ledesma and Lorenzo M. Quitco came to an end, but the
latter executed a deed (Exhibit A), acknowledging the plaintiff Ana
Quitco Ledesma as his natural daughter, and on January 21, 1922, he
issued in favor of the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma a promissory note
(Exhibit C), of the following tenor:

”
‘P2,000. For value received I promise to pay Miss Socorro Ledesma the
sum of two thousand pesos (P2,000) Philippine currency under the
following terms: Two hundred and fifty pesos (P250) to be paid on the
first day of March, 1922: another two hundred and fifty pesos (P250) to
be paid on the first day of November, 1922; the remaining one thousand
and five hundred (P1,500) to be paid two years from the date of the
execution of this note. San Enrique, Occ. Negros, P. I., Jan. 21, 1922.’

“Subsequently,
Lorenzo M. Quitco married the defendant Conchita McLachlin, with whom
he had four children, who are the other defendants. On March 9, 1930,
Lorenzo M. Quitco died (Exhibit 5), and, still later, that is, on
December 15,1932, his father Eusebio Quitco also died, and as the
latter left real and personal properties upon his death, administration
proceedings of said properties were instituted in this court, the said
case being known as the ‘Intestate of the deceased Eusebio Quitco,’
civil case No. 6153 of this court.

“Upon the institution of
the intestate of the deceased Eusebio Quitco and the appointment of the
committee on claims and appraisal, the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma, on
August 26, 1935, filed before said committee the aforequoted promissory
note for payment, and the commissioners, upon receipt of said
promissory note, instead of passing upon it, elevated the same to this
court en consulta (Exhibit F), and as the Honorable Jose Lopez Vito, presiding over the First Branch, returned said consulta
and refrained from giving his opinion thereon (Exhibit C), the
aforesaid commissioners on claims and appraisal, alleging lack of
jurisdiction to pass upon the claim, denied the same (Exhibit H).

“On
November 14, 1933 (Exhibit I), the court issued an order of declaration
of heirs in the intestate of the deceased Eusebio Quitco, and as Ana
Quitco Ledesma was not included among the declared heirs, Socorro
Ledesma, as mother of Ana Quitco Ledesma, asked for the reconsideration
of said order, a petition which the court denied. From the order
denying the said petition no appeal was taken, and in lieu thereof
there was filed the complaint which gives rise to this case.”

The first question to be decided in this appeal, raised in the first
assignment of alleged error, is whether or not the action to recover
the sum of P1,500, representing the last installment for the payment of
the promissory note Exhibit C, has prescribed.

According to
the promissory note Exhibit C, executed by the deceased Lorenzo M.
Quitco, on January 21, 1922, the last installment of P1,500 should be
paid two years from the date of the execution of said promissory note,
that is, on January 21, 1924. The complaint in the present case was
filed on June 26, 1934, that is, more than ten years after the
expiration of the said period. The fact that the plaintiff Socorro
Ledesma filed her claim, on August 26, 1933, with the committee on
claims and appraisal appointed in the intestate of Eusebio Quitco, does
not suspend the running of the prescriptive period of the judicial
action for the recovery of said debt, because the claim for the unpaid
balance of the amount of the promissory note should not have been
presented in the intestate of Eusebio Quitco, the said deceased not
being the one who executed the same, but in the intestate of Lorenzo M.
Quitco, which should have been instituted by the said Socorro Ledesma
as provided in section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure, authorizing
a creditor to institute said case through the appointment of an
administrator for the purpose of collecting his credit. More than ten
years having thus elapsed from the expiration of the period for the
payment of said debt of P1,500, the action for its recovery has
prescribed under section 43, No. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The first assignment of alleged error is, therefore, well-founded.

As to the second assignment of alleged error, consisting in that the
trial court erred in holding that the properties inherited by the
defendants from their deceased grandfather by representation are
subject to the payment of debts and obligations of their deceased
father, who died without leaving any property, while it is true that
under the provisions of articles 924 to 927 of the Civil Code, a child
represents his father or mother who died before him in the properties
of his grandfather or grandmother, this right of representation does
not make the said child answerable for the obligations contracted by
his deceased father or mother, because, as may be seen from the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure referring to partition of
inheritances, the inheritance is received with the benefit of
inventory, that is to say, the heirs only answer with the properties
received from their predecessor. The herein defendants, as heirs of
Eusebio Quitco, in representation of their father Lorenzo M. Quitco,
are not bound to pay the indebtedness of their said father from whom
they did not inherit anything.

The second assignment of alleged error is also well-founded.

Being a mere sequel of the first two assignments of alleged errors, the third assignment of error is also well-founded.

For the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold:
(1) That the filing of a claim before the committee on claims and
appraisal, appointed in the intestate of the father, for a monetary
obligation contracted by a son who died before him, does not suspend
the prescriptive period of the judicial action for the recovery of said
indebtedness; (2; that the claim for the payment of an indebtedness
contracted by a deceased person cannot be filed for its collection
before the committee on claims and appraisal, appointed in the
intestate of his father, and the properties inherited from the latter
by the children of said deceased do not answer for the payment of the
indebtedness contracted during the lifetime of said person.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is reversed, and the defendants are
absolved from the complaint, with the costs to the appellees. So
ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.