Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Baritua V CA
1 Baritua V CA
Alice did not rebut that the money used to purchase the tricycle came from
183 SCRA 565; Mar 1990 the parents
e. Lastly, the funeral expenses were paid by the parents
Petitioners: Jose Baritua and Edgar Bitancor
Respondents: Hon. CA, Nicolas Nacario and Victoria Ronda Nacario Issue: Whether settlement with Alice extinguished the claims against petitioners? (Yes)
Ponente: Sarmiento, J.
Held:
Doctrine: Parents of the deceased succeed only when latter dies without a legitimate Yes. Settlement made by petitioner to Alice (& son) was proper and extinguished all claims
descendants against the petitioners
Payment is a mode of extinguishing obligations {Art 1231 of NCC}
Facts: No denying that petitioners had already paid their obligation
1. Bienvenido Nacario was a driving a tricycle when he figured in an accident with JB Bus o Question is if payment to Alice was proper
a. JB Bus was operated by Bitancor and owned by Baritua (petitioners) To extinguish an obligation via payment, payment shall be made to the person in whose
2. Bienvenido and his passenger both died as a result of the accident favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person
a. The tricycle was also damaged authorized to receive payment
b. However, no criminal charged were instituted o No question that Alice (& son) are the successors in interest referred to by the
3. There was an extra-judicial settlement of the matter – negotiated by the petitioners and law
the bus insurer, Philippine First Insurance Company (PFICI) o They are also persons authorized to receive payment
a. Bienvenido’s wife, Alice received P18,500.00 Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
b. In consideration of this, Alice executed a “Release of Claim” and an Affidavit of 1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
Desistance ascendants;
4. The “Release of Claim” provided: 2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to their
a. Releasing and forever discharging petitioners from all actions, claims, and legitimate children and decendants;
demands, arising from the accident 3. The widow or widower;
5. The Affidavit of Desistance formally manifested her lack of interest in instituting any 4. Acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction;
case against the petitioners 5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.
6. 1 year an 10 months after the date of the accident – the parents of Bienvenido filed a
complaint for damages against petitioners Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2.
a. Claiming that petitioners had promised them indemnification for the death of Neither do they exclude one another. (Emphasis ours.)
their son
i. Funeral expenses
Article 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his parents
ii. Damage to the tricycle – since the money used to purchase the
and ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of collateral relatives.
tricycle was from them and merely loaned to their son
b. That petitioner reneged on their promises and went to settle with the long- So, it should be clear that the parents of the deceased succeed only when latter dies without
estranged wife of their son instead a legitimate descendants
c. Basically, the parents were claiming that they were the proper heirs and The surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs
should have received the settlement money In this case, Bienvenido was married to Alicia and they had a child together
7. TC dismissed the complaint o Alicia and son are the successors-in-interest
a. Held that payment of petitioners to Alice was proper o Not the parents
b. Because she (& son) was the preferred heirs and successors-in-interest of the It was therefore correct to pay the settlement to Alicia and son – not to the parents
deceased Bienvenido o Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving
c. Parents were not the proper heirs since Bienvenido had a wife and a son spouse as an heir
d. Payment to the wife and son = extinguished the claims against the petitioners
8. The parents appealed to the CA – reversed the TC Parents cannot claim from petitioners because the expenses they claimed are but money
a. The release made by Alice did not discharge the liability of the petitioners claims against the state of their deceased son.
b. Because this was done in her own capacity, not as “heirs, representatives,
successors, and assignes” Petitioners won.
c. No valid waiver of the damages since she was not the one who suffered the
damages arising from the death of Bienvenido