Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ledesma Vs Mclachlin

    Uploaded by

    Mac
    941 views2 pages
    - Socorro Ledesma lived with Lorenzo M. Quitco from 1916 to 1921 and they had a daughter named Ana Quitco Ledesma. Lorenzo executed a deed acknowledging Ana as his daughter and issued a promissory note for P2,000 to Socorro. - Lorenzo later married Conchita McLachlin and they had four children. Lorenzo and his father Eusebio Quitco both died. Socorro filed a claim for payment on the promissory note during the administration of Eusebio's estate. - The court ruled that the action to recover the remaining P1,500 on the promissory note had prescribed, as more than 10 years had

    Original Description:

    Succession

    Original Title

    Ledesma vs Mclachlin

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    - Socorro Ledesma lived with Lorenzo M. Quitco from 1916 to 1921 and they had a daughter named Ana Quitco Ledesma. Lorenzo executed a deed acknowledging Ana as his daughter and issued a promissory note for P2,000 to Socorro. - Lorenzo later married Conchita McLachlin and they had four children. Lorenzo and his father Eusebio Quitco both died. Socorro filed a claim for payment on the promissory note during the administration of Eusebio's estate. - The court ruled that the action to recover the remaining P1,500 on the promissory note had prescribed, as more than 10 years had

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    941 views2 pages

    Ledesma Vs Mclachlin

    Uploaded by

    Mac
    - Socorro Ledesma lived with Lorenzo M. Quitco from 1916 to 1921 and they had a daughter named Ana Quitco Ledesma. Lorenzo executed a deed acknowledging Ana as his daughter and issued a promissory note for P2,000 to Socorro. - Lorenzo later married Conchita McLachlin and they had four children. Lorenzo and his father Eusebio Quitco both died. Socorro filed a claim for payment on the promissory note during the administration of Eusebio's estate. - The court ruled that the action to recover the remaining P1,500 on the promissory note had prescribed, as more than 10 years had

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-44837 November 23, 1938


    SOCORRO LEDESMA and ANA QUITCO LEDESMA, plaintiffs-appellees,
    vs.
    CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

    FACTS:

    In 1916, Socorro Ledesma lived maritally with Lorenzo M. Quitco and had a
    daughter, Ana Quitco Ledesma. Their relationship lasted until the year 1921.
    Nonetheless, Lorenzo executed a deed acknowledging Ana as his natural
    daughter and issued in favor of Socorro a promissory note for the value of
    P2,000 he received.

    Subsequently, Lorenzo married Conchita McLachlin, with whom he had four (4)
    children. On March 9, 1930, Lorenzo died, and, still later, that is, on December
    15, 1932, his father Eusebio Quitco also died. As Eusebio left properties upon his
    death, administration proceedings were instituted.

    Upon the institution of the intestate of Eusebio, Socorro filed before the
    committee on claims and appraisal the promissory note for payment. Eventually,
    the court issued an order of declaration of heirs in the intestate of the deceased
    Eusebio, and Ana was not included therein. Socorro asked for the
    reconsideration of said order, however the court denied her petition.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not the action to recover the sum of P1,500, representing the
    last installment for the payment of the promissory has prescribed.

    Yes. The fact that the Socorro Ledesma filed her claim in the intestate of Eusebio
    Quitco, does not suspend the running of the prescriptive period of the judicial
    action for the recovery of said debt, because the claim should no have been
    presented in the intestate of Eusebio Quitco, as the said deceased not the one
    who executed the same, but in the intestate of Lorenzo M. Quitco. Since it has
    been more than ten years from the expiration of the period for the payment of
    said debt of P1,500 had elapsed, the action for its recovery has prescribed under
    section 43, No. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    2. Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that 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. While it is true that under the provisions of articles 924 to 927 of the Civil
    Code, a children presents his father or mother who died before him in the
    properties of his grandfather or grandmother, this right of representation does not
    make the said child answerable for the obligations contracted by his deceased
    father or mother, because, as may be seen from the provisions of the Code of
    Civil Procedure referring to partition of inheritances, the inheritance is received
    with the benefit of inventory, that is to say, the heirs only answer with the
    properties received from their predecessor. The herein defendants, as heirs of
    Eusebio Quitco, in representation of their father Lorenzo M. Quitco, are not
    bound to pay the indebtedness of their said father from whom they did not inherit
    anything.

    You might also like