Title
De Bautista vs. De Guzman
Case
G.R. No. L-28298
Decision Date
Nov 25, 1983
A passenger's death due to a jeepney accident led to claims against the deceased owner's estate. The heirs were absolved as the claim was barred for not being filed in probate proceedings, and res judicata applied due to prior dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28298)

Factual Background

On May 10, 1952, Numeriano Bautista suffered fatal injuries from a jeepney accident caused by negligent driving. The driver, Eugenio Medrano, was convicted for his actions and ordered to pay P3,000 to Bautista’s heirs. Following the death of Rosendo de Guzman on May 12, 1952, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against de Guzman's heirs for payment of this sum plus additional damages for moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees. This claim was predicated on the subsidiary liability of Rosendo de Guzman’s estate due to his driver's negligence.

Initial Motion and Dismissal

The defendants-appellants moved to dismiss the initial complaint (Civil Case No. 2050), arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint was improperly filed against a deceased person. The trial court initially agreed and dismissed the case, stating that any claims should have been presented during the intestate proceedings of Rosendo de Guzman’s estate.

Subsequent Filing and Dismissal

While knowledge of the earlier dismissal prompted plaintiffs to file a second complaint (Civil Case No. 3530) on December 14, 1954, alleging that intestate proceedings as Special Proceedings No. 1303-P were conducted after de Guzman's death, the defendants again filed a motion to dismiss. They argued that the claims were barred by res judicata due to the earlier complaint's dismissal and repeated that the required procedural rules had not been adhered to.

Trial Court's Decision

The trial court ultimately denied the defendants’ motions and proceeded with the trial. On July 11, 1961, parties submitted a stipulation of facts, leading to a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages against the defendants. This prompted an appeal from the defendants concerning several alleged trial errors.

Legal Issues Raised on Appeal

Defendants contested the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the plaintiffs failed to timely file their claims within the intestate proceedings and that res judicata barred their claims based on the earlier case dismissal. They argued that the proper legal course had not been followed, including failing to present a money claim in the probate proceedings as mandated by law.

Court's Analysis of Claims

The Supreme Court noted the plaintiffs' persistence in their claims against the deceased's estate post-intestate proceedings concluded. It distinguished between existing (subsidiary) claims and new claims regarding moral damages, emphasizing the importance of observing mandatory legal rules regarding claims against a de

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.