G.R. No. 63145 - Ventura vs. Militante

This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Sulpicia Ventura assailing an order of the public respondent, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial District, Branch XII, Cebu City.
The petition arose from a complaint for a sum of money with damages initially filed by private respondent John Uy against the estate of Carlos Ngo as represented by petitioner.
The complaint alleged that during the lifetime of Carlos Ngo, he had incurred a debt of P48,889.70 from John Uy for automotive spare parts/replacements, along with additional expenses such as attorney’s fees (P10,000.00) and initial litigation expenditures (P4,000.00).

Private respondent’s original complaint named the estate of Carlos Ngo as represented by petitioner.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the original complaint on the ground that an estate or a decedent lacks legal personality since it is neither a natural nor a juridical person in the proper legal sense.
In opposition, petitioner argued that the money claim pertained to expenses incurred for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, thus implicating that the surviving spouse could be held accountable.
Later, private respondent signaled his intention to amend his complaint to state the proper party defendant by substituting the deceased’s estate with petitioner herself.

The public respondent, after considering the arguments, ordered private respondent to file his amended complaint within fifteen (15) days.
Upon filing, the amended complaint alleged that both Carlos Ngo and petitioner were indebted to private respondent and highlighted additional facts, such as the concealment of petitioner when collection efforts were made.
Petitioner filed a comment to the amended complaint and reiterated that the conjugal partnership terminated upon the death of Carlos Ngo. Consequently, any debt alleged to be incurred during the conjugal partnership should be settled only after proper inventory and probate proceedings.
Private respondent, in his rejoinder, maintained that since petitioner was alive, the legal issue regarding the abatement of money claims due to death did not apply.

Public respondent issued an order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal motion, thus permitting the amended complaint.
Petitioner then elevated the matter through a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the public respondent’s order and to have the amended complaint dismissed on substantive grounds.

Whether or not an estate of a deceased person, which lacks legal personality, can be a proper party in a civil action.
Whether the substitution of a decedent’s estate with the surviving spouse as the defendant cures the defect regarding legal personality.

Whether the debt incurred during the conjugal partnership survives the death of one spouse.
Whether the surviving spouse can be held liable for such debts outside of the probate proceedings required for the liquidation of the conjugal estate.

Whether the amendment of the complaint to change the defendant from the estate to the surviving spouse confers jurisdiction upon the Court where it was originally lacking.
Whether such amendment substantially alters the theory and nature of the case, thereby affecting the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to hear the case.