Title
Azarraga vs. Cortes
Case
G.R. No. L-2834
Decision Date
Nov 21, 1906
Juan Azarraga sued Andrea Cortes et al. for debt; Cortes died during appeal. Court ruled proceedings continue against surviving defendants and her estate, sustaining property attachment pending final judgment.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2834)

Facts:

    Background of the Case

    • Juan Azarraga initiated an action for the payment of a certain amount of money against Andrea Cortes and other defendants in the Court of First Instance of Capiz.
    • The action was based on a debt obligation originated from a contract with Jose Altavas, from whom the defendants derived their right.

    Procedural History

    • A judgment for the payment of the debt was rendered in first instance on May 26, 1905.
    • The defendants filed an appeal from that judgment, and the case was still pending before this court.
    • On October 20, 1906, counsel for the defendants petitioned that the case be dismissed with respect to Andrea Cortes, who had died on January 30, 1906.
    • The petition also sought the release of the preliminary attachment levied upon the property owned by the deceased during her lifetime.

    Legal and Procedural Issues Raised

    • The applicability of various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure was contested:
    • Counsel for the defendants argued that sections 119 and 700 were not applicable.
    • They contended that section 118, rather than the aforementioned sections, should govern the situation.
    • One respondent died after the judgment in first instance but while the appeal was pending in the appellate court, creating the need for special procedural measures.

    Steps for Continuation of the Proceedings

    • The case was held to be continued in the second instance against the surviving defendants.
    • It was determined that an administrator could be appointed by the court for the testate or intestate estate of the deceased Andrea Cortes through the special proceedings provided in the law.
    • The underlying obligation, being single and indivisible, meant that the action to enforce the debt remained unified despite the death of one of the defendants.

    Status of the Preliminary Attachment

    • The preliminary attachment had been levied on the property of the defendants to guarantee the fulfillment of any judgment that might be rendered after trial.
    • There was no legal justification found for annulling or canceling the attachment before the final judicial determination in the case.

Issue:

    Whether the petition to dismiss the case with respect to the deceased defendant, Andrea Cortes, was proper under the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    • Is the application of sections 119 and 700 or section 118 appropriate in this context?
    • How does the death of one of the defendants affect the continuation of the action?

    Whether the preliminary attachment levied on the property should be released prior to the rendering of a final judgment.

    • Can the release of the attachment be justified on the basis of the petition filed by counsel for the defendants?
    • Does the undivided nature of the debtor’s estate warrant an immediate cancellation of the attachment?
  • How should the court deal with the procedural requirements for the continuation of the suit against the surviving defendants and the representation of the deceased defendant’s estate.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research tool in the Philippines with case digests and full jurisprudence. AI summaries highlight key points but might skip important details or context. Always check the full text for accuracy.