SUCCESSION DIGEST PRELIM #7 [Constitutional Provision]

Lorenzos father, Eusebio, died later on December 15, 1932

G.R. No. L-44837

Since Eusebio left real and personal properties, administration

proceedings were instituted known as the Intestate of the
Deceased Eusebio Quitco

November 23, 1938

SOCORRO LEDESMA and ANA QUITCO LEDESMA, plaintiffsappellees,

vs.
CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

August 26, 1935: PF Socorro filed the promissory note for

payment before the committee on claims and appraisal in the
above-mentioned proceedings
The same was denied on the ground of lack of jurisdiction

FACTS:
1916: PF Socorro lived martially with Lorenzo, while Lorenzo was
still single
1921: A daughter was born named Ana

The court issued an order of Declaration of Heirs in the Intestate

of the Deceased Eusebio, where Ana was not included among the
declared heirs.

Their relationship came to an end, so Lorenzo executed a deed,

acknowledging Ana as his natural daughter [January 21, 1922]
Lorenzo issued in favor of PF Socorro a promissory note,
promising to pay Socorro P2000, of the following tenor:

ISSUE: W/N the properties inherited by the defendants from

their deceased grandfather by representation are subject to
the payment of debts and obligations of their deceased
father, who died without leaving any property NO

1. P250 to be paid on March 1, 1922

2. P250 to be paid on November 1, 1922
3. P1, 500 to be paid on January 1, 1924 [2 years after the
execution]

Lorenzo married DF Conchita, with whom he had 4 children

Lorenzo died on March 9, 1930

RULING:
Under the provisions of Articles 924 to 927 CC, children present
his father or mother who died before him in the properties of his
grandfather or grandmother.

 This right of representation does not make the child answerable

for the obligations contracted by his deceased father or mother,
because the inheritance is received with the benefit of inventory,
which means, the heirs only answer with the properties received
from their predecessor.
The defendants, as heirs of Eusebio, in representation of their
father Lorenzo are not bound to pay the indebtedness of their
father from whom they did not inherit anything.

RULING:
The last instalment should be paid on January 21, 1924.
The complaint was filed on June 26, 1934, or more than 10 years
after the expiration.
The filing of PF Socorro in the Intestate of Eusebio on August 26,
1933, does not suspend the running of the prescriptive period of
the judicial action for the recovery of the debt

Conclusion:
The claim for the payment of an indebtedness contracted by a
deceased person cannot be filed for its collection before the
committee on claims and appraisal, appointed in the intestate of
his father, and the properties inherited from the latter by the
children of said deceased do not answer for the payment of the
indebtedness contracted during the lifetime of said person.

ISSUE: W/N the action to recover the sum of P1, 500,

representing the last instalment for the payment of the
promissory note has prescribed - YES

The claim for the unpaid balance of the amount of the promissory
note should be presented in the Intestate of Lorenzo, who executed
the same, not Eusebio.
More than 10 years have elapsed from the expiration of the
period for the payment of said debt; thus, its action for recovery
has prescribed [Section 43, No. 1, Civil Procedure].