G.R. NO.
82233, March 22, 1990
JOSE
BARITUA AND EDGAR BITANCOR VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NICOLAS NACARIO AND
VICTORIA RONDA NACARIO
FACTS: Bienvenido
Nacario, while driving a tricycle along the national highway figured in an
accident with a bus owned and operated by petitioner Jose Baritua. As a result
of that accident Bienvenido and his passenger died, and the tricycle was
damaged. Subsequently, as a consequence of the extra-judicial settlement of the
matter negotiated by the petitioners and the bus’ insurer, Bienvenido Nacario’s
widow, Alicia, received P18,500.00. About one year and ten months from the date
of the accident, the private respondents, who are the parents of Bienvenido
Nacario, filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners alleging that
the petitioners promised them that as extra-judicial settlement, they shall be
indemnified for the death of their son. Petitioners, however, negotiated and
settled instead their obligations with the long-estranged wife of their late
son. After trial, the court a quo dismissed the complaint, holding that
the payment by the petitioners to the widow and her child, who are the
preferred heirs and successors-in-interest of the deceased Bienvenido to the
exclusion of his parents, the private respondents, extinguished any claim
against the defendants.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners are still liable to pay
the private respondents despite the agreement of extrajudicial settlement
between the petitioners and the victim’s compulsory heirs.
RULING: NO. There is no denying that the petitioners had
paid their obligation arising from the accident that occurred on November 7,
1979. The only question now is whether or not Alicia, the surviving
spouse and the one who received the petitioners’ payment, is entitled to 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. 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.
Comments
Post a Comment