ALIPIO V.
CA The RTC however, denied petitioner’s
FACTS:
Respondent Romeo Jaring was the
lessee of a 14.5 hectare fishpond in Bataan for a
period of 5 years ending on September 12, 1990.
On June 19, 1987, he subleased the fishpond for
the remaining period of his lease to the spouses
Placido and Purita Alipio and the spouses
Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel for an amount
of Php 485,600.oo payable in 2 installments in
the amount of Php 300,000.00 and 185,600.00
respectively.
The 2nd installment will fall due on June
30, 1989. The 1st installment was duly paid but
the 2nd installment was only partially fulfilled
leaving a balance of Php 50,600.00. The sub
lessees failed to settle the remaining balance
despite repeated demands. This prompted
private respondent Jaring to file a complaint on
Oct. 13, 1989 against the Alipio and Manuel
spouses in the RTC Bataan for the collection of
the said amount and prayed in the alternative,
the rescission of the sublease contract in case of
failure to pay. However, prior to the institution
of the complaint, on Dec. 1, 1988, one of the sub
lessees, Placido Alipio, died.
His wife, Purita moved to dismiss the
complaint citing Rule 3 Sec 21 of the 1964 Rules
of Court which states that in an action for
recovery of money, debt or interests and the
defendant dies before the CFI renders the final
judgment, the case shall be dismissed and
prosecuted in the manner especially provided in
these rules. This rule was however amended, so
that in Rule 3 Sec 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
procedure, it states that there is no longer need
to dismiss, that the case will be allowed to
continue until entry of final judgment and that
the claims will then be pursued in the manner
provided by the rules on prosecuting claims
against the estate of a deceased person.
motion while the Manuel spouses were
defaulted for failure to file an answer. The RTC
rendered a decision ordering the petitioner and
the Manuel spouses to pay the unpaid balance of
Php 50,600 plus Php 10,000.00 for atty’s fees
and cost of suit.
Petitioner Alipio appealed to the CA but
her appeal was also dismissed by the said
appellate court citing the cases (1) Climaco vs.
Siy-Uy - that the rule invoked by petitioner does
not apply where there are another defendants
against whom the action is instituted; and (2)
Imperial insurance Ins. vs. David – that where a
husband and wife bound themselves jointly and
severally, in case of death, the liability of the
surviving spouse is independent and separate so
that she may be sued for the whole debt.
Hence, petitioner Alipio, filed a petition
for review on certiorari questioning the
applicability of the above 2 cases.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a creditor can sue the
surviving spouse for the collection of a debt
which is owed by the conjugal partnership of
gains.
HELD:
No. Surviving spouse is not liable. The
conjugal partnership of gains is liable. It is clear
that Climaco had a cause of action against the
persons named as defendants therein. It was,
however, a cause of action for the recovery of
damages, that is, a sum of money, and the
corresponding action is, unfortunately, one that
does not survive upon the death of the
defendant, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
As held in Calma v. Tañedo, after the
death of either of the spouses, no complaint for
the collection of indebtedness chargeable
against the conjugal partnership can be brought
against the surviving spouse. Instead, the claim
must be made in the proceedings for the
liquidation and settlement of the conjugal
property. The reason for this is that upon the
death of one spouse, the powers of
administration of the surviving spouse ceases
and is passed to the administrator appointed by
the court having jurisdiction over the settlement
of estate proceedings.

Indeed, the surviving spouse is not even

a de facto administrator such that conveyances
made by him of any property belonging to the
partnership prior to the liquidation of the mass
of conjugal partnership property is void. The
inventory of the Alipios' conjugal property is
necessary before any claim chargeable against it
can be paid. Needless to say, such power
exclusively pertains to the court having
jurisdiction over the settlement of the
decedent's estate and not to any other court.