Baritua vs CA (Shares in Intestate Succession)
GR 82233 | March 22, 1990 | Sarmiento, J.
Digested by: Abs
Recit-Ready Case Summary: Bienvenido Nacario died because he met an accident with a bus driven by
Edgar Bitancor. The bus was owned by Jose Baritua. Bitancor and Baritua, settled their obligations by
way of extra-judicial settlement with Bienvenido’s wife. After more than a year, Bienvenido’s parents then
are claiming for damages. Now can the parents claim for damages? Or are they entitled to be payed?
Related CIvil Code Provision:
Art 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his
successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.
Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to their legitimate children
and decendants;
3. The widow or widower;
4. Acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction;
5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.
Article 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his parents and
ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of collateral relatives.
Case Doctrines:
1. The parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without a legitimate descendant.
2. Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the
deceased spouse.
FACTS: The tricycle driven by Bienvenido Nacario figured in an accident with a bus driven by Edgar
Bitancor and owned and operated by Jose Baritua. The accident resulted to the death of Bienvenido and
his passenger and the tricycle being damaged.
Subsequently, an extra-judicial settlement was negotiated by the petitioners and Bienvenido’s widow,
Alicia. The latter received P18,500.00. In consideration of the amount she received, Alicia executed a
"Release of Claim" in favor of the petitioners and PFICI(PFICI is the bus insurer), releasing and forever
discharging them from all actions, claims, and demands arising from the accident which resulted in her
husband's death and the damage to the tricycle which the deceased was then driving. Alicia likewise
executed an affidavit of desistance in which she formally manifested her lack of interest in instituting any
case, either civil or criminal, against the petitioners.
After 1 year and 10 months, the private respondents, who are the parents of Bienvenido, filed a complaint
for damages against the petitioners. They alleged that during the vigil for their deceased son, the
petitioners promised them that as extra-judicial settlement, they shall be indemnified for the death of their
son, for the funeral expenses incurred by reason thereof, and for the damage for the tricycle the purchase
price of which they(parents) only loaned to Bienvenido.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners(Baritua and Bitancor) are still liable to pay Bienvenido’s parents despite the
agreement of extrajudicial settlement between them(Baritua and Bitancor) and the victim’s compulsory
heirs?
HELD: NO. Petitioners are not liable to pay Bienvenido’s parents. According to the law, Obligations are
extinguished by payment or performance. This is evident in Art. 1231 of the Civil Code.
The Court reiterated that there is no denying that the petitioners had paid their obligation petition arising
from the accident. The only question now is whether or not Alicia, the spouse and the one who received
the petitioners' payment, is entitled to it.
Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Philippines enumerates the persons to whom payment to extinguish
an obligation should be made.
Art 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been
constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.
Certainly there can be no question that Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors in
interest referred to in law as the persons authorized to receive payment. The Civil Code states:
Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to their legitimate children
and decendants;
3. The widow or widower;
4. Acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction;
5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2. Neither do
they exclude one another.
Article 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his parents and
ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of collateral relatives.
It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without a legitimate
descendant. On the other hand, the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs. As it has been
established that Bienvenido was married to Alicia and that they begot a child, the private respondents are
not successors-in-interest of Bienvenido; they are not compulsory heirs. The petitioners therefore acted
correctly in settling their obligation with Alicia as the widow of Bienvenido and as the natural guardian of
their lone child. This is so even if Alicia had been estranged from Bienvenido. Mere estrangement is not a
legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse.
