On November 7, 1979, a tricycle driven by Bienvenido Nacario collided with JB Bus No. 80 driven by petitioner Edgar Bitancor and owned by petitioner Jose Baritua.
Bienvenido and his passenger died, and the tricycle was damaged.
No criminal case was filed.
On March 27, 1980, an extra-judicial settlement negotiated by the petitioners and the bus insurer resulted in Bienvenido's widow Alicia Baracena Vda. de Nacario, receiving P18,500.00. Alicia signed a "Release of Claim," and an affidavit of desistance, manifesting her lack of interest in instituting any case
On September 2, 1981, Private respondents Nicolas Nacario and Victoria Ronda Nacario, who are Bienvenido's parents, filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners, seeking indemnity for his death, funeral expenses, and tricycle damage.
CFI-Camarines Sur: Dismissed the complaint, citing the prior settlement with Bienvenido's widow and her child, the preferred heirs and successors-in-interest of the deceased, extinguishing any claim.
CA: Ruled in favor of the parents, ordering the petitioners to pay damages for tricycle damage, funeral expenses, cemetery lot, oracion adulto, and attorney's fees. The court ruled that the case was instituted by the parents of the deceased in their own capacity, not as heirs, and that Alicia could not waive the damages she did not suffer.
WoN the respondent appellate court erred in holding that the petitioners are still liable to pay the private respondents the aggregate amount of P20,505.00 despite the agreement of extrajudicial settlement between the petitioners and the victim's compulsory heirs. YES
The petition is meritorious.
Obligations are extinguished by various modes among them being by payment. Article 1231 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:
Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished:
(1) By payment or performance;
(2) By the loss of the thing due;
(3) By the condonation or remission of the debt;
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor;
(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation.
There is no denying that the petitioners had paid their obligation petition arising from the accident that occurred on November 7, 1979. The only question now is whether or not Alicia, the spouse and the one who received the petitioners' payment, is entitled to it.
Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Philippines enumerates the persons to whom payment to extinguish an obligation should be made.
Art 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.
Certainly there can be no question that Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors in interest referred to in law as the persons authorized to receive payment. The Civil Code states:
Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to their legitimate children and decendants;
3. The widow or widower;
4. Acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction;
5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2. Neither do they exclude one another. (Emphasis ours.)
Article 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his parents and ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of collateral relatives.
(Emphasis ours.)
It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without a legitimate descendant. On the other hand, the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs. As it has been established that Bienvenido was married to Alicia and that they begot a child, the private respondents are not successors-in-interest of Bienvenido; they are not compulsory heirs. The petitioners therefore acted correctly in settling their obligation with Alicia as the widow of Bienvenido and as the natural guardian of their lone child. This is so even if Alicia had been estranged from Bienvenido. Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse.
Neither could the private respondents, as alleged creditors of Bienvenido, seek relief and compensation from the petitioners. While it may be true that the private respondents loaned to Bienvenido the purchase price of the damaged tricycle and shouldered the expenses for his funeral, the said purchase price and expenses are but money claims against the estate of their deceased son. These money claims are not the liabilities of the petitioners who, as we have said, had been released by the agreement of the extra-judicial settlement they concluded with Alicia Baracena Vda. de Nacario, the victim's widow and heir, as well as the natural guardian of their child, her co-heir. As a matter of fact, she executed a "Release Of Claim" in favor of the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby REINSTATED. Costs against the private respondents.
Comments
Post a Comment