Ledesma vs.

McLachlin
G.R. No. 44837 Nov. 23, 1938
Villa-Real, J.

Facts:

- Plaintiff Socorro Ledesma (Socorro) lived martially with Lorenzo Quitco (Lorenzo), of which
relation a daughter, Ana Quitco Ledesma (Ana), was born.
o The relationship between Socorro and Lorenzo came to an end in 1921, and the latter
(Lorenzo) did two things: first, he executed a deed acknowledging Ana as his natural
daughter, and second, he issued in favor of Socorro a promissory note in which he
promised to pay Socorro P2000, P1500 of which is to be paid two years after the
execution of the promissory note.
- Subsequently, Lorenzo married the defendant Conchita McLachlin (Conchita), with whom he had
four children (co-defendants).
- March 1930: Lorenzo died. He left no properties to his heirs.
- December 1932: Lorenzos father, Eusebio Quitco (Eusebio), died (intestate). He left behind real
and personal properties. Administration proceedings of said properties were instituted in the trial
court.
o The Court issued an order of declaration of heirs in the intestate of Eusebio. Socorro
asked for a reconsideration of said order as Ana was not included among the declared
heirs. This was, however, denied by the Court. Socorro did not appeal.
o In 1933, Socorro filed before the committee on claims and appraisal of the intestate of
Eusebio a claim of payment from the promissory note of Lorenzo, in the sum of P1500.
This was, however, denied.
o In 1934, Socorro filed a separate case with the CFI against the defendants for, among
others, the recovery of the payment due from the promissory note.
- CFI: rendered judgment declaring Ana as a natural child of Lorenzo (not sure where this came
from), as well as ordering the defendants to pay Socorro P1500 representing the promissory note
made by Lorenzo.
Hence, this appeal.

Held:

- The action to recover the sum of P1500, representing the last installment for the payment of the
promissory note, has prescribed.
o According to the promissory note, the last installment (P1500) was to be paid two years
from the date of execution of the PNthat is, on January 1924.
o The complaint to claim the said payment was filed on June 1934, more than 10 years
after the expiration of the said period.
The fact that Socorro filed her claim on 1933 with the Committee on claims and
appraisal did not suspend the running of the prescriptive period because it was
Lorenzo who executed the same, not Eusebio. The claim should have been
presented in the intestate of Lorenzo, not of Eusebio.
 - The heirs only answer with the properties received from their predecessor. The herein
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.
o The fact that under Arts. 924 to 927 of the (old) civil code, a child represents his
father/mother who died before him in the properties of his grandfather/grandmother does
not make the child answerable for the obligations contracted by his deceased
father/mother because, as what has been said, the heirs only answer with properties
received from their predecessor.

Judgment Reversed.