Petitioners: JOSEPHINE CRUZ MALOLOS represented by her HEIRS EMMANUEL, MARIA MARINELA and

MARIA MARJORIE, all surnamed MALOLOS

Respondents: ASIA PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION and HONORABLE JOSE P. ALEJANDRO, Presiding
Judge of Branch XXVI of the Court of First Instance of Manila
Facts:
Petitioner Josephine Cruz Malolos (deceased) is represented by her heirs Emmanuel, Maria Marinela and Maria
Marjorie, all surnamed Malolos.
Asia Pacific Finance Corporation (APCOR) is a quasi-banking institution organized and existing under and by virtue
of the laws of the Philippines and is partly engaged in the discounting of receivables of natural as well as juridical
persons.
APCOR purchased from E. Francisco Liners Company, Inc. (Francisco Liner) a postdated Far East Bank and Trust
Company check numbered 214070 in the amount of P105,000.00 issued by Josephine Malolos to Francisco Liner.
The check had a maturity date of May 30, 1979. Francisco Liner endorsed the check and executed a Deed of
Asignment in favor of APCOR before getting the discounted proceeds.
When deposited on its maturity date, the check was dishonored because Malolos bank account had already been
closed. APCOR demanded from Francisco Liners and Malolos, in her capacity as drawer of the check, the payment
of said check, but the obligation remained unpaid.
APCOR filed a complaint for sum of money with preliminary attachment RTC Manila against E. Francisco Liners, Co.,
Inc., Elias A. Francisco (as president of Francisco Liners), and Malolos. In the complaint, APCOR prayed that a writ of
preliminary attachment be issued against the properties of Francisco Liner and Malolos as security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered.
Judge Alejandro issued an Order of Attachment and thereafter a Writ of Preliminary Attachment was issued. Levy was
annotated upon the residential property of Malolos. Josephine Cruz Malolos died on April 27, 1980, and her counsel,
on July 10, 1980, filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint as against her pursuant to Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court.
APCOR opposed the motion it argued that while it is admitted that the action again Josephine Cruz Malolos is one for
recovery of money and being such it does not survive, the circumstances obtaining in the case place the same
among the exceptions to Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
Judge Alejandro ruled in favor of APCOR and denied the motion to dismiss.
Issue:
Whether or not an attachment levied on some properties of the defendant constitutes an exception to the general rule
of non-survival of the money claim as provided for in Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling:
SC ruled that the RTC decision be reversed and a writ of mandamus was issued to dismiss the case in so far as
Josephine Malolos is concerned without prejudice to APCOR to file a claim in the estate proceedings of Josephine
Malolos.

There is no question that the action in the court below is for collection or recovery of money.
It is already a settled rule that an action for recovery of money or for collection of a debt is one that does not survive
and upon the death of the defendant the case should be dismissed to be presented in the manner especially provided
in the Rules of Court.
SEC. 21. Where claim does not survive. When the action is for recovery of money, debt or
interest thereon, and the defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall
be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided in these rules.
As providen in Rules of Court, "when the action for recovery of money, debt or interest thereon, and the defendant
dies before final judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner
specially provided by the rules (Section 5 of Rule 86 and its related provisions).
It is mandatory in character and confers no jurisdiction upon the Court.
Rationale: Upon the death of the defendant a testate or intestate proceeding shall be instituted in the proper court
wherein all his creditors must appear and file their claims which shall be paid proportionately out of the property left
by the
Purpose: To avoid useless duplicity of procedure-the ordinary action must be wiped out from the ordinary court.
RTC violates the Rules constitutes grave abuse of discretion as it deviates from the orderly procedure prescribed for
the settlement of claims against deceased persons which is designed to protect the interests of the creditors of the
decedent. Allowing APCOR to attach Malolos properties for the benefit of her claim against the estate would give an
undue advantage over other creditors against the estate. A writ of attachment already issued in connection with a
money claim which has to be dismissed because of the death of the defendant before final judgment cannot provide
an exception.