100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 5 - 6 out of 91 pages.
Intransmissble by express provision of law;5.Obligation to pay taxes – because the claim isagainst the estate;6.Criminal liability – the civil liability arising fromthe crime, however, is transmissible7.Obligation to give support – it is extinguished bythe death of the person obliged to give support.Monetary obligations or debts (2 views)1.Not transmissible since it is actually the estateof the deceased which pays the debts2.Transmissible because the shares of the heirsare reduced by the payment of the debts – aka.progressive 'depersonalization' – rights andobligations attach to whoever has possession ofthe property (preferred view). In the case of:ALVAREZ v IAC185 SCRA 8 May 7, 1990FACTS: Aniceto Yanes was survived by his children,Rufino, Felipe and Teodora. Herein private respondents,Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus, are the children of Rufinowho died in 1962 while the other private respondents,Antonio and Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe.Teodora was survivedby her child, Jovita (Jovito) Alib.There are two parcels of land which are involved in thiscase. Said lots were registered in the names of the heirsof Aniceto Yanes. Fortunato D. Santiago was issued aTransfer Certificate of Title. Santiago then sold the lotsto Monico B. Fuentebella, Jr. The lots were soldthereafter Rosendo Alvarez. The Yaneses filed acomplaint against Santiago, Arsenia Vda. deFuentebella, Alvarez and the Register of Deeds ofNegros Occidental for the “return” of the ownership andpossession of the lots, and prayed for an accounting ofthe produce of the land from 1944 up to the filing of thecomplaint, and that the share or money equivalent duethe heirs be delivered to them, and damages. During thependency of the case, Alvarez sold the lots to Dr. RodolfoSiason.ISSUE:Whether the liability arising from the sale of thelots made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr.Rodolfo Siasonshould be the sole liability of the late Rosendo Alvarez orof his estate, after his death.RULING:As a general rule is that a party’s contractualrights and obligations are transmissible to thesuccessors. However, in this case Petitioners being theheirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, cannot escape thelegal consequences of their father’s transaction, whichgave rise to the present claim for damages. Thatpetitioners did not inherit the property involved herein isof no moment because by legal fiction, the monetaryequivalent thereof devolved into the mass of theirfather’s hereditary estate, and we have ruled that thehereditary assets are always liable in their totality forthe payment of the debts of the estate.It must, however, be made clear that petitioners areliable only to the extent of the value of their inheritance.Other cases:VIARDO VS BELMONTE, ET AL.