Facts:

The case at hand involves Maria G. Aguas, Felix Guardino, and Francisco Salinas as the plaintiffs and appellants against Hermogenes Llemos, who was deceased, with the substitutes being his representatives: Perpetua Yerro-Llemos, Hermenegildo Llemos, Felino Llemos, and Amado Llemos, as the defendants and appellees. The events leading to this case originated on March 14, 1960, when the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Catbalogan, Samar (Civil Case No. 4824), seeking damages against the defendant, Hermogenes Llemos. The plaintiffs argued that they received a registered mailing notifying them of a petition for a writ of possession, which was scheduled for submission in court on February 23, 1960, at 8:00 AM. Acting on this notification, the plaintiffs traveled from their residence in Manila to Catbalogan, accompanied by lawyers, only to find that no such petition had been filed. They asserted that the defendant failed to attend the scheduled hearing mal

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• On March 14, 1960, Francisco Salinas, along with spouses Felix Guardino and Maria Aguas, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Catbalogan, Samar (Civil Case No. 4824) seeking damages.
• The complaint arose from the allegation that defendant Hermogenes Llemos served them, by registered mail, a copy of a petition for a writ of possession with the notice that it would be filed in the Samar court on February 23, 1960 at 8:00 a.m.
• Upon receiving the document, the plaintiffs, accompanied by lawyers, went to the court from their Manila residence only to discover that no such petition had actually been filed.

Allegations and Claims

• Plaintiffs contended that defendant Llemos had maliciously caused them to incur unnecessary expenses and undue embarrassment by serving false documents.
• It was further alleged that this falsity led to wasted time, mental anguish, and financial losses.
• The claim was essentially for damages resulting from alleged tortious misconduct.

Subsequent Events

• On April 1, 1960, before the defendant could answer the complaint, he died.
• Plaintiffs, upon receiving leave from the court, amended their complaint to include the heirs of the deceased.
• The heirs filed a motion to dismiss on July 21, 1960, arguing that the legal representative—not the heirs—should have been made the party defendant and that the proper remedy was through estate settlement proceedings.

Court’s Procedural History

• The Court of First Instance dismissed the motion on August 12, 1960, holding that claims for recovery of money should be filed within the proceedings for the settlement of the estate.
• Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal on points of law, specifically challenging the application of the correlated provisions of Rules of Court concerning actions that are either abated by death or that survive the decedent's death.

Issue:

Whether the action for damages arising from the alleged tortious conduct of the defendant survived his death.

• The core issue was the applicability of Rule 87, section 5, which bars certain claims if not filed in estate proceedings.
• Consideration was given to Rule 88, section 1, which allows actions surviving against a decedent’s executors or administrators for recovering damages for injury to person or property.

The Proper Characterization of the Plaintiffs’ Claim

• Whether the claim for damages was purely a claim for money arising from an express or implied contract (thus barred by Rule 87) or if it fell under the category of damages for injury (tort) as enumerated in Rule 88.
• The issue necessitated examining the provisions and interpretations of both rules, particularly as applied in earlier cases such as Leung Ben vs. O’Brien.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)