Case Digest (A.M. No. CA-18-35-P)
Facts:
In Socorro Ledesma and Ana Quitco Ledesma v. Conchita McLachlin et al. (66 Phil. 547 [G.R. No. 44837, November 23, 1938]), the plaintiffs-appellees, Socorro Ledesma and her daughter Ana Quitco Ledesma, alleged that Socorro lived maritally with Lorenzo M. Quitco from 1916 to 1921, giving birth to Ana, whom Lorenzo thereafter acknowledged by deed in 1921. On January 21, 1922, Lorenzo executed a promissory note for ₱2,000 in favor of Socorro, with a ₱1,500 balance due two years later. Lorenzo later married defendant-appellant Conchita McLachlin and had four children. He died in 1930, and his father, Eusebio Quitco, died in 1932 leaving an estate administered under Civil Case No. 6153 before the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros. Socorro filed her claim for the ₱1,500 balance before the committee on claims and appraisal of Eusebio’s estate in August 1933, but the committee declined jurisdiction. An order of declaration of heirs in that intestate did not recognize Ana as hCase Digest (A.M. No. CA-18-35-P)
Facts:
- Relationship and Acknowledgments
- From 1916 to 1921, Socorro Ledesma lived maritally with Lorenzo M. Quitco, resulting in the birth of a daughter, Ana Quitco Ledesma.
- In 1921, upon the termination of their relationship, Lorenzo executed Exhibit A, acknowledging Ana as his natural daughter, and on January 21, 1922, issued Exhibit C, a promissory note of ₱2,000 payable in three installments (₱250 on March 1, 1922; ₱250 on November 1, 1922; ₱1,500 on January 21, 1924).
- Subsequent Events and Judicial Proceedings
- Lorenzo later married Conchita McLachlin and had four children; he died on March 9, 1930. On December 15, 1932, his father Eusebio Quitco died, prompting intestate proceedings (Civil Case No. 6153).
- On August 26, 1935, Socorro filed the promissory note as a claim before the committee on claims and appraisal in Eusebio’s estate; the committee denied jurisdiction. On November 14, 1933, the court declared heirs, excluding Ana; Socorro’s petition for reconsideration was denied, leading her to file the present complaint on June 26, 1934.
Issues:
- Whether the action to recover the ₱1,500 installment under Exhibit C has prescribed.
- Whether properties inherited by the defendants from their grandfather by representation are liable for the debts of their deceased father.
- Whether the trial court erred in condemning the defendants to pay jointly and severally the ₱1,500 balance.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)