G.R. No. L-56249 May 29, 1987 IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED REV.

FATHER TEODORO ARANAS, RAMONA B. VDA. DE ARANAS, ADELIA B. ARANASFERNANDEZ, HEIRS OF THE LATE RODULFO B. ARANAS, ETC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. VICENTE B. ARANAS AND HON. LUIS B. MANTA, respondents.

PARAS, J.: This is a petition for certiorari which seeks to declare the orders of respondent Judge dated July 16, 1980 and September 23, 1980 as an exercise of a gross abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, by ruling that the properties under Group C of the testate estate of the late Fr.Teodoro Aranas are subject to remunerative legacies. The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: Fr. Teodoro Aranas, a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, died on January 19, 1953. He had executed on June 6, 1946 his Last Will and Testament which was admitted to probate on August 31, 1956. In said Last Will and Testament, Fr. Teodoro Aranas stipulated the following: A. The return to Aniceto Aranas or his heirs of all properties acquired by Fr. Aranas from his brother Aniceto Aranas and ten (10) parcels of land described in the Will inherited by the testator from his parents. B. The return to Carmelo Aranas or his heirs of all properties acquired by Fr. Aranas from his brother Carmelo Aranas and ten (10) parcels of land described in the Will inherited by the testator from his parents. C. The special administration of the remainder of the estate of the testator by Vicente Aranas, a faithful and serviceable nephew and designating him also as recipient of 1/2 of the produce of said properties after deducting the expenses for the administration and the other 1/2 of the produce to be given to the Catholic Church for the eternal repose of the testator's soul. Said pertinent provision 1 reads as follows: Fourth. It is my will that the lands I had bought from other persons should be converged and placed under a "special administrator." The special administrator of these lands, for his office, should receive one half of all the produce from which shall be deducted the expenses for the administration, and the other half of the produce should be received by the Roman Catholic Church and should be spent for my soul, Vicente B. Aranas (Tingting), because he is a faithful and serviceable nephew, should be the first special administrator of said properties, without bond, until his death or until he should not want to hold the said office

anymore. Anyone of the sons of my brother Carmelo Aranas can hold the said office of special administrator, and none other than they. Their father, my brother Carmelo Aranas shall be the one to decide who among them shall hold the said office, but upon the death of my said brother Carmelo Aranas, his said sons will have power to select the one among them ourselves. The special administration is perpetual. The lower court in its Order 2 dated November 17, 1977 ruled, upon petitioners' (in Sp. Proc. No. 303) "Motion for the Declaration of Heirs and Partition; and for Removal of the Administrator (Vicente Aranas) and/or for his Permission to Resign, and appointment of His Successor" that the "perpetual inalienability and administration of the portion of the estate of the late Rev. Fr. Teodoro Aranas, administered by Vicente Aranas, is nun and void after twenty years from January 19, 1954 ... " and declared in the same order the heirs of the late Fr. Teodoro Aranas. It also declared that "the removal of Vicente Aranas will, therefore, not serve the ends of justice and for the best interest of all the heirs, particularly with respect to the portion of the estate taken by the heirs of Aniceto Aranas, represented by the petitioners herein and the rest of the heirs of Carmelo, represented by the intervenors, coheirs of Administrator Vicente Aranas." 3 However, the abovesaid Order was subsequently set aside upon the "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and to Declare Testate and Intestate Heirs of the late Fr. Teodoro Aranas," filed by the administrator Vicente Aranas on the allegation that said order was violative of due process and without legal and factual basis because only the issue for the removal of the administrator was heard and not the matter of the declaration of heirs. Thus, the lower court declared in its Order, 4 dated July 16, 1980 that the Order dated November 17, 1977 is "set aside and in the interest of justice, reopened in order that other heirs, successors-in-interest of Felino Aranas, 5 could likewise assert their claims, as in the case of the heirs of Aniceto Aranas and Carmelo Aranas." 6 Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the lower court in its order dated September 23, 1980, petitioners now come before Us by certiorari raising the issue that the lower court erred in setting aside its order dated November 17, 1977 and in not applying the provisions on Usufruct of the New Civil Code with respect to the properties referred to as Group "C" in the Last Will and Testament. The court ruled in its questioned order that this particular group of properties (Group "C") is subject to the following: 1. Remunerative legacy by way of usufruct of the net proceeds of 1/2 of the estate after deducting expenses for administration in favor of Vicente Aranas, during his lifetime and shall continue an administrator of the estate, and, who, upon his death or refusal to continue such usufruct, may be succeeded by any of the brothers of the administrator as selected by their father, Carmelo Aranas, if still alive or one selected by his sons if, he, Carmelo, is dead; Pursuant to the Will. (Article 562, 563, 564 and 603 of the New Civil Code).

2. Legacy in favor of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly the Archbishop diocese of Cagayan de Oro City Represented by the Reverend Archbishop Patrick H. Cronin over one-half of the proceeds of the properties under Group "C." (Article 603, New Civil Code) and to last for a period of Fifty years from the effective date of the legacy, Article 605, New Civil Code). (Annex "L-14," p. 87, Rollo) Assailing the aforementioned ruling, petitioners rely heavily on the doctrine laid down in Art. 870 of the New Civil Code to wit: Art. 870. The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void. A cursory reading of the English translation of the Last Will and Testament shows that it was the sincere intention and desire of the testator to reward his nephew Vicente Aranas for his faithful and unselfish services by allowing him to enjoy one-half of the fruits of the testator's third group of properties until Vicente's death and/or refusal to act as administrator in which case, the administration shall pass to anyone chosen by Carmelo Aranas among his sons and upon Carmelo's death, his sons will have the power to select one among themselves. Vicente Aranas therefore as a usufructuary has the right to enjoy the property of his uncle with all the benefits which result from the normal enjoyment (or exploitation) of another's property, with the obligation to return, at the designated time, either the same thing, or in special cases its equivalent. This right of Vicente to enjoy the fruits of the properties is temporary and therefore not perpetual as there is a limitation namely his death or his refusal. Likewise his designation as administrator of these properties is limited by his refusal and/or death and therefore it does not run counter to Art. 870 of the Civil Code relied upon by the petitioners. Be it noted that Vicente Aranas is not prohibited to dispose of the fruits and other benefits arising from the usufruct. Neither are the naked owners (the other heirs) of the properties, the usufruct of which has been given to Vicente Aranas prohibited from disposing of said naked ownership without prejudice of course to Vicente's continuing usufruct. To void the designation of Vicente Aranas as usufructuary and/or administrator is to defeat the desire and the dying wish of the testator to reward him for his faithful and unselfish services rendered during the time when said testator was seriously ill or bed-ridden. The proviso must be respected and be given effect until the death or until the refusal to act as such of the instituted usufructuary/administrator, after which period, the property can be properly disposed of, subject to the limitations provided in Art. 863 of the Civil Code concerning a fideicommissary substitution, said Article says: A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part of the inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect, provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted, and provided further, that the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are living at the time of the death of the testator. It is contended by petitioners that the ruling made by respondent court dated November 17, 1977 was already final and not subject to correction as what was set aside and to be reheard was only

regarding the determination of additional heirs. Such contention is not worthy of credence. Respondents in their Memorandum allege and it is not disputed by petitioners that the order of November 17, 1977 has not yet become final because it was received only on January 12, 1978 by the counsel for respondent Vicente Aranas and the Motion for Reconsideration and to declare testamentary and intestate heirs dated January 17, 1978 was filed by the said respondent within the reglementary period. Besides the validity or invalidity of the usufructuary dispositions would affect the determination of heirs. As to petitioners' allegation that the order of July 16, 1980 is without basis, the record shows that during the hearing of the urgent motion for reconsideration and to declare testamentary and intestate heirs, it was proven conclusively by the said respondent Vicente B. Aranas that he was instituted as a remunerative legatee per mandate of the Last Will and Testament by way of usufructuary. Likewise the right of the Roman Catholic Church as the other usufructuary legatee for the duration of the statutory lifetime of a corporation, that is, 50 years from the date of the effectivity of said legacy, was also established. 7 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.

JOSE BARITUA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Eleventh Division); HON. MANUEL D. VICTORIO, Judge, RTC, Br. 53, Rosales-Pangasinan; and ROY R. DOMINGO, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact Crispin A. Domingo, respondents. DECISION PUNO, J.: Petitioner Jose Baritua raises the question of venue in the filing of a complaint for damages arising from a quasi-delict. The facts show that on June 26, 1989 private respondent Roy R. Domingo, represented by his attorney-in-fact, Crispin A. Domingo, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan a complaint against petitioner Jose Baritua as owner and operator of the J.B. Bus Lines. Private respondent sought to recover actual and exemplary damages after a bus owned by petitioner rammed private respondents car along the Maharlika Highway, Sto. Tomas, Batangas on January 19, 1988. In his complaint, private respondent alleged that: 1. He is a Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of Poblacion Rosales, Pangasinan before he went to the United States where he now lives at 4525 Leata Lane, La Cantada, LA 91011. He is being represented by his attorney-in-fact, Crispin A. Domingo, a Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of No. 47 Yale St., Cubao, Quezon City. Defendant is also a

Filipino, of legal age, married and doing business under the business name J.B. Bus Lines with business address at Tramo Street, Pasay City where said defendant could be served summons. x x x.[1] Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue. He alleged that since private respondent was not a resident of the Philippines, the complaint should be filed in the place where petitioner, the defendant, resides which is in Gubat, Sorsogon. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss after finding that private respondent was merely temporarily out of the country and did not lose his legal residence in Rosales, Pangasinan.[2] The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.[3] Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition. Petitioner claims that: A. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GROSS ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION DESPITE PETITIONERS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE VENUE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ACTION (CIVIL CASE NO. 915-R) WAS IMPROPERLY LAID; B. INSPITE ALSO OF THE ADMITTED FACT THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT ROY DOMINGO HAS REMAINED AN ACTUAL RESIDENT OF 4525 LEATA LANE, LA CANTADA, LA 91011, U.S.A., AT LEAST SINCE FEBRUARY 18, 1988, UP TO THE PRESENT.[4] A complaint for damages is a personal action. In cases filed before the Regional Trial Court, the venue for personal actions is laid down in Section 2 (b) of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court which reads as follows : Sec. 2. Venue in Courts of First Instance. - xxx (b) Personal actions. - - All other actions may be commenced and tried where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff. x x x[5] The complaint in personal actions may be filed in the place where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff resides, at the option of the plaintiff. The Rules give the plaintiff the option of choosing where to file his complaint. He can file it in the place (1) where he himself or any of them resides; or (2) where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found. The plaintiff or the defendant must be residents of the place where the action has been instituted at the time the action is commenced.[6] Section 2 (b) of Rule 4 speaks of the place where the defendant or the plaintiff resides. We have held that the residence of a person must be his personal, actual or physical habitation or his actual residence or abode.[7] It does not mean fixed permanent residence to

which when absent, one has the intention of returning. The word resides connotes ex vi termini actual residence as distinguished from legal residence or domicile.[8] Actual residence may in some cases be the legal residence or domicile, but for purposes of venue, actual residence is the place of abode and not necessarily legal residence or domicile.[9] Actual residence signifies personal residence, i.e., physical presence and actual stay thereat.[10] This physical presence, nonetheless, must be more than temporary and must be with continuity and consistency.[11] The question in this case is whether private respondent had his actual residence in Rosales, Pangasinan or in Los Angeles, California at the time the complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Rosales, Pangasinan. It is undisputed that private respondent left for the United States on April 25, 1988 before the complaint was filed on June 26, 1989.[12] This fact is expressly admitted in the complaint itself where private respondent states that he is [sic] x x x a resident of Poblacion Rosales, Pangasinan before he went to the United States where he now lives in 4525 Leata Lane, La Cantada, LA 91011. Furthermore, the special power of attorney in favor of Crispin A. Domingo was drawn and executed by private respondent on February 18, 1988 before the Philippine Consul in Los Angeles, California.[13] In said special power of attorney, private respondent declared that he was a resident of Los Angeles, California.[14] Private respondent was not a mere transient or occasional resident of the United States. He fixed his place of abode in Los Angeles, California and stayed there continuously and consistently for over a year at the time the complaint was filed in Rosales Pangasinan.[15] Contrary to the lower courts finding the temporary nature of private respondents working non-immigrant visa did not make him a non-resident of the United States. There is no showing as to the date his temporary employment in the United States ended.[16] There is likewise no showing much less any allegation, that after the filing of the complaint, private respondent actually returned to the Philippines and resumed residence in Rosales, Pangasinan. In fact petitioners claim that private respondent resided in the United States continuously and consistently since 1988 until the present has not been refuted.[17] We previously held that: We are fully convinced that private respondent Colomas protestations of domicile in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, based on his manifested intention to return there after the retirement of his wife from government service to justify his bringing of an action for damages against petitioner in the C.F.I. of Ilocos Norte, is entirely of no moment since what is of paramount importance is where he actually resided or where he may be found at the time he brought the action, to comply substantially with the requirements of Sec. 2(b) of Rule 4, Rules of Court, on venue of personal actions x x x.[18] It is fundamental that the situs for bringing real and personal civil actions is fixed by the rules to attain the greatest convenience possible to parties litigants and their witnesses by affording them maximum accessibility to the courts of justice.[19] The choice of venue is given to the plaintiff but is not left to his caprice.[20] It cannot unduly deprive a resident defendant of the rights conferred upon him by the Rules of Court.[21]

When the complaint was filed in Rosales, Pangasinan, not one of the parties was a resident of the town. Private respondent was a resident of Los Angeles, California while his attorney-infact was a resident of Cubao, Quezon City. Petitioners business address according to private respondent is in Pasay City,[22] although petitioner claims he resides in Gubat, Sorsogon.[23] The venue in Rosales, Pangasinan was indeed improperly laid. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 20737 is reversed and set aside. The complaint in Civil Case No. 915-R is dismissed for improper venue. No costs. SO ORDERED. Regalado, (Chairman), Romero and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur. Mendoza, J., took no part; having taken part in decision of the Court of Appeals.

G.R. No. L-40789 February 27, 1987 INTESTATE ESTATE OF PETRA V. ROSALES, IRENEA C. ROSALES, petitioner, vs. FORTUNATO ROSALES, MAGNA ROSALES ACEBES, MACIKEQUEROX ROSALES and ANTONIO ROSALES,respondents. Jose B. Echaves for petitioner. Jose A. Binghay and Paul G. Gorres for respondents.

GANCAYCO, J.: In this Petition for Review of two (2) Orders of the Court of First Instance of Cebu the question raised is whether the widow whose husband predeceased his mother can inherit from the latter, her mother-in-law. It appears from the record of the case that on February 26, 1971, Mrs. Petra V. Rosales, a resident of Cebu City, died intestate. She was survived by her husband Fortunate T. Rosales and

their two (2) children Magna Rosales Acebes and Antonio Rosales. Another child, Carterio Rosales, predeceased her, leaving behind a child, Macikequerox Rosales, and his widow Irenea C. Rosales, the herein petitioner. The estate of the dismissed has an estimated gross value of about Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). On July 10, 1971, Magna Rosales Acebes instituted the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The case was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 3204-R. Thereafter, the trial court appointed Magna Rosales Acebes administratrix of the said estate. In the course of the intestate proceedings, the trial court issued an Order dated June 16, 1972 declaring the following in individuals the legal heirs of the deceased and prescribing their respective share of the estate Fortunata T. Rosales (husband), 1/4; Magna R. Acebes (daughter), 1/4; Macikequerox Rosales, 1/4; and Antonio Rosales son, 1/4. This declaration was reiterated by the trial court in its Order I dated February 4, 1975. These Orders notwithstanding, Irenea Rosales insisted in getting a share of the estate in her capacity as the surviving spouse of the late Carterio Rosales, son of the deceased, claiming that she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law together with her son, Macikequerox Rosales. Thus, Irenea Rosales sought the reconsideration of the aforementioned Orders. The trial court denied her plea. Hence this petition. In sum, the petitioner poses two (2) questions for Our resolution petition. First is a widow (surviving spouse) an intestate heir of her mother-in-law? Second are the Orders of the trial court which excluded the widow from getting a share of the estate in question final as against the said widow? Our answer to the first question is in the negative. Intestate or legal heirs are classified into two (2) groups, namely, those who inherit by their own right, and those who inherit by the right of representation. 1 Restated, an intestate heir can only inherit either by his own right, as in the order of intestate succession provided for in the Civil Code, 2 or by the right of representation provided for in Article 981 of the same law. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code are: Art. 980. The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares. Art. 981. Should children of the deceased and descendants of other children who are dead, survive, the former shall inherit in their own right, and the latter by right of representation.

Art. 982. The grandchildren and other descendants shag inherit by right of representation, and if any one of them should have died, leaving several heirs, the portion pertaining to him shall be divided among the latter in equal portions. Art. 999. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or their descendants and illegitimate children or their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, such widow or widower shall be entitled to the same share as that of a legitimate child. There is no provision in the Civil Code which states that a widow (surviving spouse) is an intestate heir of her mother-in-law. The entire Code is devoid of any provision which entitles her to inherit from her mother-in- law either by her own right or by the right of representation. The provisions of the Code which relate to the order of intestate succession (Articles 978 to 1014) enumerate with meticulous exactitude the intestate heirs of a decedent, with the State as the final intestate heir. The conspicuous absence of a provision which makes a daughter-in-law an intestate heir of the deceased all the more confirms Our observation. If the legislature intended to make the surviving spouse an intestate heir of the parent-in-law, it would have so provided in the Code. Petitioner argues that she is a compulsory heir in accordance with the provisions of Article 887 of the Civil Code which provides that: Art. 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 descendants; (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. In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code.

The aforesaid provision of law 3 refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in which case the surviving spouse (widow or widower) is a compulsory heir. It does not apply to the estate of a parent-in-law. Indeed, the surviving spouse is considered a third person as regards the estate of the parent-inlaw. We had occasion to make this observation in Lachenal v. Salas, 4 to Wit: We hold that the title to the fishing boat should be determined in Civil Case No. 3597 (not in the intestate proceeding) because it affects the lessee thereof, Lope L. Leoncio, the decedent's son-in-law, who, although married to his daughter or compulsory heir, is nevertheless a third person with respect to his estate. ... (Emphasis supplied). By the same token, the provision of Article 999 of the Civil Code aforecited does not support petitioner's claim. A careful examination of the said Article confirms that the estate contemplated therein is the estate of the deceased spouse. The estate which is the subject matter of the intestate estate proceedings in this case is that of the deceased Petra V. Rosales, the mother-in-law of the petitioner. It is from the estate of Petra V. Rosales that Macikequerox Rosales draws a share of the inheritance by the right of representation as provided by Article 981 of the Code. The essence and nature of the right of representation is explained by Articles 970 and 971 of the Civil Code, viz Art. 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented, and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have inherited. Art. 971. The representative is called to the succession by the law and not by the person represented. The representative does not succeed the person represented but the one whom the person represented would have succeeded. (Emphasis supplied.) Article 971 explicitly declares that Macikequerox Rosales is called to succession by law because of his blood relationship. He does not succeed his father, Carterio Rosales (the person represented) who predeceased his grandmother, Petra Rosales, but the latter whom his father would have succeeded. Petitioner cannot assert the same right of representation as she has no filiation by blood with her mother-in-law. Petitioner however contends that at the time of the death of her husband Carterio Rosales he had an inchoate or contingent right to the properties of Petra Rosales as compulsory heir. Be that as it may, said right of her husband was extinguished by his death that is why it is their son Macikequerox Rosales who succeeded from Petra Rosales by right of representation. He did not succeed from his deceased father, Carterio Rosales.

On the basis of the foregoing observations and conclusions, We find it unnecessary to pass upon the second question posed by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is Our considered opinion, and We so hold, that a surviving spouse is not an intestate heir of his or her parent-in-law. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioner. Let this case be remanded to the trial-court for further proceedings. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-30977 January 31, 1972 CARMEN LAPUZ SY, represented by her substitute MACARIO LAPUZ, petitionerappellant, vs. EUFEMIO S. EUFEMIO alias EUFEMIO SY UY, respondent-appellee. Jose W. Diokno for petitioner-appellant. D. G. Eufemio for respondent-appellee.

REYES J.B.L., J.:p

Petition, filed after the effectivity of Republic Act 5440, for review by certiorari of an order, dated 29 July 1969, of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 20387, dismissing said case for legal separation on the ground that the death of the therein plaintiff, Carmen O. Lapuz Sy, which occurred during the pendency of the case, abated the cause of action as well as the action itself. The dismissal order was issued over the objection of Macario Lapuz, the heir of the deceased plaintiff (and petitioner herein) who sought to substitute the deceased and to have the case prosecuted to final judgment. On 18 August 1953, Carmen O. Lapuz Sy filed a petition for legal separation against Eufemio S. Eufemio, alleging, in the main, that they were married civilly on 21 September 1934 and canonically on 30 September 1934; that they had lived together as husband and wife continuously until 1943 when her husband abandoned her; that they had no child; that they acquired properties during their marriage; and that she discovered her husband cohabiting with a Chinese woman named Go Hiok at 1319 Sisa Street, Manila, on or about March 1949. She prayed for the issuance of a decree of legal separation, which, among others, would order that the defendant Eufemio S. Eufemio should be deprived of his share of the conjugal partnership profits. In his second amended answer to the petition, herein respondent Eufemio S. Eufemio alleged affirmative and special defenses, and, along with several other claims involving money and other properties, counter-claimed for the declaration of nullity ab initio of his marriage with Carmen O. Lapuz Sy, on the ground of his prior and subsisting marriage, celebrated according to Chinese law and customs, with one Go Hiok, alias Ngo Hiok. Issues having been joined, trial proceeded and the parties adduced their respective evidence. But before the trial could be completed (the respondent was already scheduled to present surrebuttal evidence on 9 and 18 June 1969), petitioner Carmen O. Lapuz Sy died in a vehicular accident on 31 May 1969. Counsel for petitioner duly notified the court of her death. On 9 June 1969, respondent Eufemio moved to dismiss the "petition for legal separation" 1 on two (2) grounds, namely: that the petition for legal separation was filed beyond the one-year period provided for in Article 102 of the Civil Code; and that the death of Carmen abated the action for legal separation. On 26 June 1969, counsel for deceased petitioner moved to substitute the deceased Carmen by her father, Macario Lapuz. Counsel for Eufemio opposed the motion. On 29 July 1969, the court issued the order under review, dismissing the case. 2 In the body of the order, the court stated that the motion to dismiss and the motion for substitution had to be resolved on the question of whether or not the plaintiff's cause of action has survived, which the court resolved in the negative. Petitioner's moved to reconsider but the motion was denied on 15 September 1969. After first securing an extension of time to file a petition for review of the order of dismissal issued by the juvenile and domestic relations court, the petitioner filed the present petition on 14

October 1969. The same was given due course and answer thereto was filed by respondent, who prayed for the affirmance of the said order. 3 Although the defendant below, the herein respondent Eufemio S. Eufemio, filed counterclaims, he did not pursue them after the court below dismissed the case. He acquiesced in the dismissal of said counterclaims by praying for the affirmance of the order that dismissed not only the petition for legal separation but also his counterclaim to declare the Eufemio-Lapuz marriage to be null and void ab initio. But petitioner Carmen O. Lapuz Sy (through her self-assumed substitute for the lower court did not act on the motion for substitution) stated the principal issue to be as follows: When an action for legal separation is converted by the counterclaim into one for a declaration of nullity of a marriage, does the death of a party abate the proceedings? The issue as framed by petitioner injects into it a supposed conversion of a legal separation suit to one for declaration of nullity of a marriage, which is without basis, for even petitioner asserted that "the respondent has acquiesced to the dismissal of his counterclaim" (Petitioner's Brief, page 22). Not only this. The petition for legal separation and the counterclaim to declare the nullity of the self same marriage can stand independent and separate adjudication. They are not inseparable nor was the action for legal separation converted into one for a declaration of nullity by the counterclaim, for legal separation pre-supposes a valid marriage, while the petition for nullity has a voidable marriage as a pre-condition. The first real issue in this case is: Does the death of the plaintiff before final decree, in an action for legal separation, abate the action? If it does, will abatement also apply if the action involves property rights? . An action for legal separation which involves nothing more than the bed-and-board separation of the spouses (there being no absolute divorce in this jurisdiction) is purely personal. The Civil Code of the Philippines recognizes this in its Article 100, by allowing only the innocent spouse (and no one else) to claim legal separation; and in its Article 108, by providing that the spouses can, by their reconciliation, stop or abate the proceedings and even rescind a decree of legal separation already rendered. Being personal in character, it follows that the death of one party to the action causes the death of the action itself actio personalis moritur cum persona. ... When one of the spouses is dead, there is no need for divorce, because the marriage is dissolved. The heirs cannot even continue the suit, if the death of the spouse takes place during the course of the suit (Article 244, Section 3). The action is absolutely dead (Cass., July 27, 1871, D. 71. 1. 81; Cass. req., May 8, 1933, D. H. 1933, 332.") 4 . Marriage is a personal relation or status, created under the sanction of law, and an action for divorce is a proceeding brought for the purpose of effecting a dissolution of that relation. The action is one of a personal nature. In the absence

of a statute to the contrary, the death of one of the parties to such action abates the action, for the reason that death has settled the question of separation beyond all controversy and deprived the court of jurisdiction, both over the persons of the parties to the action and of the subject-matter of the action itself. For this reason the courts are almost unanimous in holding that the death of either party to a divorce proceeding, before final decree, abates the action. 1 Corpus Juris, 208; Wren v. Moss, 2 Gilman, 72; Danforth v. Danforth, 111 Ill. 236; Matter of Grandall, 196 N.Y. 127, 89 N.E. 578; 134 Am St. Rep. 830; 17 Ann. Cas. 874; Wilcon v. Wilson, 73 Mich, 620, 41 N.W. 817; Strickland v. Strickland, 80 Ark. 452, 97 S. W. 659; McCurley v. McCurley, 60 Md. 185, 45 Am. Rep. 717; Begbie v. Begbie, 128 Cal. 155, 60 Pac. 667, 49 L.R.A. 141. 5 The same rule is true of causes of action and suits for separation and maintenance (Johnson vs. Bates, Ark. 101 SW 412; 1 Corpus Juris 208). A review of the resulting changes in property relations between spouses shows that they are solely the effect of the decree of legal separation; hence, they can not survive the death of the plaintiff if it occurs prior to the decree. On the point, Article 106 of the Civil Code provides: . Art. 106. The decree of legal separation shall have the following effects: (1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other, but the marriage bonds shall not be severed; . (2) The conjugal partnership of gains or the absolute conjugal community of property shall be dissolved and liquidated, but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the profits earned by the partnership or community, without prejudice to the provisions of article 176; (3) The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse, unless otherwise directed by the court in the interest of said minors, for whom said court may appoint a guardian; (4) The offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will of the innocent one shall be revoked by operation of law. From this article it is apparent that the right to the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains (or of the absolute community of property), the loss of right by the offending spouse to any share of the profits earned by the partnership or community, or his disqualification to inherit by intestacy from the innocent spouse as well as the revocation of testamentary provisions in favor of the offending spouse made by the innocent one, are all rights and disabilities that, by the very terms of the Civil Code article, are vested exclusively in the persons of the spouses; and by their nature and intent, such claims and disabilities are difficult to conceive as assignable or transmissible. Hence, a claim to said rights is not a claim that "is not thereby extinguished" after

a party dies, under Section 17, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court, to warrant continuation of the action through a substitute of the deceased party. Sec. 17. Death of party. After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be granted... The same result flows from a consideration of the enumeration of the actions that survive for or against administrators in Section 1, Rule 87, of the Revised Rules of Court: SECTION 1. Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or administrator. No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator; but actions to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal, may be commenced against him. Neither actions for legal separation or for annulment of marriage can be deemed fairly included in the enumeration.. A further reason why an action for legal separation is abated by the death of the plaintiff, even if property rights are involved, is that these rights are mere effects of decree of separation, their source being the decree itself; without the decree such rights do not come into existence, so that before the finality of a decree, these claims are merely rights in expectation. If death supervenes during the pendency of the action, no decree can be forthcoming, death producing a more radical and definitive separation; and the expected consequential rights and claims would necessarily remain unborn. As to the petition of respondent-appellee Eufemio for a declaration of nullity ab initio of his marriage to Carmen Lapuz, it is apparent that such action became moot and academic upon the death of the latter, and there could be no further interest in continuing the same after her demise, that automatically dissolved the questioned union. Any property rights acquired by either party as a result of Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines 6 could be resolved and determined in a proper action for partition by either the appellee or by the heirs of the appellant. In fact, even if the bigamous marriage had not been void ab initio but only voidable under Article 83, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, because the second marriage had been contracted with the first wife having been an absentee for seven consecutive years, or when she had been generally believed dead, still the action for annulment became extinguished as soon as one of the three persons involved had died, as provided in Article 87, paragraph 2, of the Code, requiring that the action for annulment should be brought during the lifetime of any one of the parties involved. And furthermore, the liquidation of any conjugal partnership that might have resulted from such voidable marriage must be carried out "in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse", as expressly provided in Section 2 of the Revised Rule 73, and not in the annulment proceeding.

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment of the Manila Court of Juvenile and Domestic Relations is hereby affirmed. No special pronouncement as to costs. Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur.