G.R. No. L-55750 November 8, 1989 MELGAR VS.

BUENVIAJE FACTS: January 11, 1980 a vehicular accident ha ened alon! the National "i!h#ay o$ %aran!ay &!o', (olan!ui, &lbay, #hereby a a''en!er bu' o#ned and o erated by the late )elicidad %alla and driven by *omin!o +a'in '#erved to the le$t lane and came into head-on-colli'ion #ith a vehicle o#ned by ,ateo Lim Relucio and driven by Ruben Lim Relucio comin! $rom the o o'ite direction. -t then '#erved $urther to the le$t thi' time collidin! head-on-#ith a a''en!er bu' o#ned by %en.amin )lore' and driven by )abian (rade'. &' a re'ult o$ the accident, )elicidad %alla, o#ner and o erator o$ the a''en!er bu' and mother o$ herein etitioner' to!ether #ith *omin!o +a'in, driver o$ the bu', died on the ' ot. Ruben Lim Relucio, driver o$ the 'ervice .ee and )abian (rade', driver o$ the other a''en!er bu' died in the 'ame accident. /n July 0, 1980 the ' ou'e' /'car (rade' and 1ictoria (rade' rivate re' ondent' herein a' the only 'urvivin! $orced heir' o$ the decea'ed )abian (rade', $iled a com laint in the +ourt o$ )ir't -n'tance o$ +amarine' 2ur a!ain't the children o$ decea'ed )elicidad %alla, etitioner' herein $or dama!e' 'ince the re' ondent' are contendin! that *omin!o +a'in 3 )elicidad4' driver5 drove hi' vehicle in a rec6le'' and im rudent manner #hich #a' the 'ole, direct and ro7imate cau'e o$ the incident. (etitioner' moved $or the di'mi''al o$ the ca'e on the !round that the com laint 'tate' no cau'e o$ action a!ain't them, ar!uin! that it i' entirely incorrect to hold the children liable $or the alle!ed ne!li!ence o$ their decea'ed mother and to con'ider 'uin! the heir' o$ a decea'ed er'on the 'ame a' 'uin! the e'tate o$ 'aid decea'ed er'on ina'much a' the la't ortion o$ 2ection 81 o$ Rule 9 o$ the Rule' o$ +ourt mean' that the creditor 'hould in'titute the ro er inte'tate roceedin!' #herein #hich he may be able to inter o'e hi' claim. +)- denied the motion to di'mi'' $or lac6 o$ merit . :he etitioner' herein, $iled a motion $or recon'ideration on the !round that; *i'tinction 'hould be made bet#een a 'uit a!ain't the e'tate o$ )elicidad %alla and the re'ent action #hich i' a er'onal action a!ain't the children o$ )elicidad %alla, con'iderin! that the children have ab'olutely no artici ation directly or indirectly in the alle!ed ne!li!ent act' o$ )elicidad %alla, and there i' ab'olutely no lo!ical ba'i' to hold the children liable $or dama!e' re'ultin! $rom alle!ed ne!li!ent act' o$ )elicidad %alla. -n $act that 'econd 'entence o$ &rticle 1911 o$ the Ne# +ivil +ode rovide';< :he heir i' not liable beyond the value o$ the ro erty he received $rom the decedent=<. 2 ou'e' (rade', rivate re' ondent' herein, $iled their comment and motion to admit amended com laint to!ether #ith an amended com laint amendin! the title o$ the ca'e namin! a' de$endant' the >'tate o$ the late )elicidad %alla a' re re'ented by the children named in the ori!inal com laint.

+)- i''ued it' order denyin! the motion $or recon'ideration and admittin! the amended com laint. ISSUE: #hether or not the etitioner' a' heir' o$ )elicidad can be ordered 'ub'tituted $or the decea'ed )elicidad %alla HELD: &))-R,&:-1>. ?hat #a' ori!inally $iled #a' a com laint $or dama!e' a!ain't etitioner' herein, #ho are the children and 'urvivin! $orced heir' o$ the decea'ed )elicidad %alla, o#ner and o erator o$ the a''en!er bu' @)A2/@ #hich alle!edly cau'ed the death o$ the decea'ed )abian (rade'. Ander Section 5 Rule 8 o$ the Rule' o$ +ourt, action' that are abated by death are; 315 &ll claim' $or money a!ain't the decedent, ari'in! $rom contract, e7 re'' or im lied, #hether the 'ame be due, not due or contin!entB 385 &ll claim' $or $uneral e7 en'e' and e7 en'e' $or the la't 'ic6ne'' o$ the decedentB and 395 Jud!ment' $or money a!ain't the decedent 3&!ua' v. Llemo', 5 2+R& 959 C19D8E5. -t i' evident that the ca'e at bar i' not amon! tho'e enumerated. /ther#i'e 'tated, action' $or dama!e' cau'ed by the tortiou' conduct o$ the de$endant 'urvive the death o$ the latter. :he action can there$ore be ro erly brou!ht under 2ection 1, Rule 87 o$ the Rule' o$ +ourt, a!ain't an e7ecutor or admini'trator. 2ection 1. &ction' #hich may and #hich may not be brou!ht a!ain't e7ecutor or admini'trator. F No action u on a claim $or the recovery o$ money or debt or intere't thereon 'hall be commenced a!ain't the e7ecutor or admini'tratorB but action' to recover real or er'onal ro erty, or an intere't therein, $rom the 'tate, or to en$orce a lien thereon, and action' to recover dama!e' $or an in.ury to er'on or ro erty, real or er'onal, may be commenced a!ain't him. "ence, the inclu'ion o$ the @e'tate o$ )elicidad %alla@ in the amended com laint a' de$endant. :he oint o$ controver'y i' ho#ever on the $act that no e'tate roceedin!' e7i't $or the rea'on that her children had not $iled any roceedin!' $or the 'ettlement o$ her e'tate, claimin! that %alla le$t no ro ertie' . :hu', #hile etitioner' may have correctly moved $or the di'mi''al o$ the ca'e and rivate re' ondent' have $orth#ith corrected the de$iciency by $ilin! an amended com laint, even be$ore the lo#er court could act on etitionerG' motion $or recon'ideration o$ the denial o$ their motion to di'mi'', the action under 2ection 17 o$ Rule 9 o$ the Rule' o$ +ourt, #hich allo#' the 'uit a!ain't the le!al re re'entative o$ the decea'ed, that i', the e7ecutor or admini'trator o$ hi' e'tate, #ould 'till be $utile, $or the 'ame rea'on that there a ear' to be no 'te ' ta6en to#ard' the 'ettlement o$ the e'tate o$ the late )elicidad %alla, nor ha' an e7ecutor or admini'trator o$ the e'tate been a ointed. )rom the 'tatement made by the etitioner' that @many er'on' die #ithout leavin! any a''et at all@ 3Re ly to Re' ondent'G +omment, . 78B ,emorandum $or (etitioner', Rollo, . 55, #hich

in'inuate' that the decea'ed le$t no a''et', it i' rea'onable to believe that the etitioner' #ill not ta6e any 'te to e7 edite the early 'ettlement o$ the e'tate, .udicially or e7tra-.udicially i$ only to de$eat the dama!e 'uit a!ain't the e'tate. 3Note ho#ever the decea'ed %alla a arently le$t the bu'5. Ander the circum'tance' the ab'ence o$ an e'tate roceedin! may be avoided by reHuirin! the heir' to ta6e the lace o$ the decea'ed 3Javier v. &raneta, 90 (hil. 898 C1951E5. &' re'tated in a much later ca'e, in ca'e o$ unrea'onable delay in the a ointment o$ an e7ecutor or admini'trator o$ the e'tate or in ca'e #here the heir' re'ort to an e7tra.udicial 'ettlement o$ the e'tate, the court may ado t the alternative o$ allo#in! the heir' o$ the decea'ed to be 'ub'tituted $or the decea'ed 3La#a' v. +ourt o$ & eal', 10D 2+R& 179 C198DE.