Emnace v. Court of Appeals and the Estate of Vicente Tabanao
G.R. No. 126334, November 23, 2001
Petitioners Emnace, Tabanao and Divigranacia were partners in a business known as Ma. Nelma Fishing Industry. Sometime in January 1986, they decided to dissolve their partnership and executed an agreement of partition and distribution. Throughout the existence of the partnership, and even after Tabanao’s death, petitioner failed to submit to Tabanao’s heirs any financial statements. Petitioner also reneged on his promise to turn over the 1/3 share in the total assets of the partnership to the heirs. Private respondents filed an action for accounting, payment of shares, division of assets and damages. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue, lack of jurisdiction and lack of capacity of the estate of Tabanao to sue. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The trial court held that the heirs of Tabanao had a right to sue in their own names, in view of the provision of Art. 777 of the CC.
ISSUE: Whether the private respondents have the legal capacity to sue.
YES. petitioner asserts that the surviving spouse of Vicente Tabanao has no legal capacity to sue since she was never appointed as administratrix or executrix of his estate. Petitioner’s objection in this regard is misplaced. The surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as executrix or administratrix of the estate before she can file the action. She and her children are complainants in their own right as successors of Vicente Tabanao. From the very moment of Vicente Tabanao’s death, his rights insofar as the partnership was concerned were transmitted to his heirs, for rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had against the partnership and petitioner were transmitted to respondents by operation of law, more particularly by succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted. Moreover, respondents became owners of their respective hereditary shares from the moment Vicente Tabanao died. A prior settlement of the estate, or even the appointment of Salvacion Tabanao as executrix or administratrix, is not necessary for any of the heirs to acquire legal capacity to sue. As successors who stepped into the shoes of their decedent upon his death, they can commence any action originally pertaining to the decedent. From the moment of his death, his rights as a partner and to demand fulfillment of petitioner’s obligations as outlined in their dissolution agreement were transmitted to respondents. They, therefore, had the capacity to sue and seek the court’s intervention to compel petitioner to fulfill his obligations.
