G.R. No. 145470 - Spouses Cruz vs. Spouses Ferdo

The plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased Pedro Bonnevie y Orsetty, who claimed to be a creditor of Manuel Pardo y Ferrer, also deceased.
The claimed debt of P18,000 represented Pedro Bonnevie’s share in the profits of the firm "Pardo y Cia.," of which Manuel Pardo y Ferrer was a copartner.
Although Manuel Pardo y Ferrer had acknowledged the debt, his sudden death precluded the execution of a document evidencing his acknowledgment.

The plaintiffs alleged that Manuel Pardo y Cecilio (a relative of Manuel Pardo y Ferrer and one of the defendants) along with other heirs acknowledged the indebtedness by means of a public instrument dated July 25, 1927.
They further alleged that the conditions imposed in the instrument had been complied with and that despite the debt becoming due and demandable, the defendants refused to pay the full amount.
It was also maintained that all defendants were of legal age.

The complaint was originally filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking the recovery of P18,000 with legal interest and costs.
After filing, the defendant Manuel Pardo y Cecilio died, prompting the amendment of the complaint and the service of summons upon his executor, Francisco Romero.
Executor Romero filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on the grounds that:

The court lacked jurisdiction over his person as well as the subject matter of the action.
The plaintiffs lacked the requisite juridical personality to maintain the action, as they had not been declared as heirs through the corresponding special proceedings.

An order dated March 4, 1933, sustained the demurrer on the theory that the plaintiffs, as heirs of Pedro Bonnevie y Orsetty, had not yet acquired legal capacity because they were not formally declared heirs in the special proceedings.
The plaintiffs excepted to this ruling and refused to file another amended complaint.
On March 31, 1933, upon petition by Executor Romero, the court dismissed the complaint as to his involvement, without imposing costs.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.
The orders sustaining the demurrer and dismissing part of the case led to the current appeal filed by the appellants (the plaintiffs).

Whether the plaintiffs, as heirs of the deceased creditor, possessed the juridical personality to file the recovery action without first being declared heirs in special proceedings.
Whether the presentation of their claim was proper, or if it should have been directed to the committee appointed in the intestate or testamentary proceedings of the deceased debtor.

Whether the action against the deceased defendant’s executor was apt, given that claims against a deceased must be pursued through the appointed committee in the testamentary proceedings of the debtor.

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer filed by Executor Romero on the grounds of both jurisdiction and the plaintiffs’ capacity.
Whether the subsequent dismissal of the complaint and the denial of the motion for a new trial were contrary to law.