Melgarvs.

Buenviaje

FACTS:
1. An accident happened along the National Highway of Brgy. Agos, Albay where a passenger bus owned and
operated by Felicidad Balla and driven by Domingo Casin swerved to the left lane and collided with a Ford
FieraownedbyMateoLimRelucioanddrivenbyRubenLimReluciocomingfromtheoppositedirection.
2. ItthenswervedfurthertotheleftthistimecollidingwithapassengerbusownedbyBenjaminFloresanddriven
byFabianPrades.
3. Asaresultoftheaccident,BallaandCasindiedonthespot.RelucioandPradesalsodied.
4. AstheonlysurvivingforcedheirsofPrades,OscarandVictoriaPradesfiledacomplaintintheCFIagainstthe
childrenofBallafordamages.
5. HeirsofBalla(Melgaretal)movedforthedismissalofthecaseallegingthatthereisnocauseofactionagainst
them,arguingthatitisentirelyincorrecttoholdthechildrenliablefortheallegednegligenceoftheirdeceased
motherandtoconsidersuingtheheirsofadeceasedpersonthesameassuingtheestateofsaiddeceasedperson
inasmuch as the last portion of Section 21 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court means that the creditor should
institutetheproperintestateproceedingswhereinwhichhemaybeabletointerposehisclaim.
6. CFI denied MTD. After the Heirs of Balla filed their MR, Sps. Prades filed comment and an amended
complaintwhereinthetitleofthecomplaintwasamendedtoincludetheEstateoftheLateFelicidadBallaas
representedbythechildren.
7. CFIdeniedMR.
8. Melgar et al argue that the heirs are not not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the
decedent.

ISSUE:WONCFIhasthepowertoentertainasuitfordamagesarisingfromthedeathofaperson,filedagainstthe
estateofanotherdeceasedpersonasrepresentedbytheheirs.

HELD: Yes, under Rule 87. Court ordered that petitioners, the heirs of the deceased, to be substituted for the
decedent.Petitiondismissed.
RATIO:
1. UnderSection5Rule86oftheRulesofCourt,actionsthatareabatedbydeathare:(1)Allclaimsformoney
againstthedecedent,arisingfromcontract,expressorimplied,whetherthesamebedue,notdueorcontingent;
(2)Allclaimsforfuneralexpensesandexpensesforthelastsicknessofthedecedent;and(3)Judgmentsfor
moneyagainstthedecedent.
2. Thiscaseisnotamongthoseenumerated.Actionsfordamagescausedbythetortiousconductofthedefendant
survivethedeathofthelatter.
3. ProperruleisRULE87,SEC.1.Hence,inclusionofEstateofFelicidadBallaintheamendedcomplaint.
4. However,thepointofcontroversyisonthefactthatnoestateproceedingsexistforthereasonthatMelgaretal
hadnotfiledanyproceedingsforthesettlementofherestate,claimingthatBallaleftnoproperties.
5. While Melgar et al may have correctly moved for the dismissal of the case and Sps. Prades have forthwith
correctedthedeficiencybyfilinganamendedcomplaint,theactionunderROC3,Section17whichallowsthe
suitagainstthelegalrepresentativeofthedeceased(theexecutororadministratorofhisestate)wouldstillbe
futile,forthesamereasonthatthereappearstobenostepstakentowardsthesettlementoftheestateofthelate
FelicidadBalla,norhasanexecutororadministratoroftheestatebeenappointed.
6. Furthermore,MelgaretalimplythatBallaleftnoassetsthusleadingthecourttoconcludethatMelgaretal
wouldnottakestepstoadvancetheearlysettlementoftheestate.
7. Underthecircumstancestheabsenceofanestateproceedingmaybeavoidedbyrequiringtheheirstotakethe
placeofthedeceased.