Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ledesma Vs Mclachlin
Ledesma Vs Mclachlin
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.