Scribd
Upload
108 views1 page

Ledesma v. Mclachlin

The plaintiff, Ana Ledesma, an illegitimate child of Lorenzo Quitco, sued to collect payment on a promissory note from Lorenzo from the estate of Lorenzo's father, Eusebio Quitco. The court denied Ana's claim, holding that the properties inherited by Lorenzo's children from their grandfather Eusebio were not subject to paying Lorenzo's debts, as Lorenzo had not left any property of his own. While Lorenzo's children inherited Eusebio's properties in representation of Lorenzo, this right of representation does not make them responsible for Lorenzo's obligations, as heirs only answer for debts with the properties they inherit from their predecessor.

Uploaded by

kris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
108 views1 page

Ledesma v. Mclachlin

The plaintiff, Ana Ledesma, an illegitimate child of Lorenzo Quitco, sued to collect payment on a promissory note from Lorenzo from the estate of Lorenzo's father, Eusebio Quitco. The court denied Ana's claim, holding that the properties inherited by Lorenzo's children from their grandfather Eusebio were not subject to paying Lorenzo's debts, as Lorenzo had not left any property of his own. While Lorenzo's children inherited Eusebio's properties in representation of Lorenzo, this right of representation does not make them responsible for Lorenzo's obligations, as heirs only answer for debts with the properties they inherit from their predecessor.

Uploaded by

kris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

LEDESMA v.

MCLACHLIN
GR No.L-44837, November 23, 1938
66 PHIL 547

FACTS: Lorenzo Quitco, died in 1930, leaving defendant Mclachlin and her children
as heirs. Plaintiff Ana Ledesma, spurious/illegitimate child of Lorenzo Quitco, and her
mother, sued to declare her as compulsory heir which the court however denied.
Two years later, Lorenzo's father Eusebio died, and because he left some personal
and real properties without a will, an intestate proceeding was instituted and a court
order declaring his compulsory heirs did not of course include Ana as one. Following
such court action, the plaintiff proceeded to collect the sum payable on a
promissory note then issued in favor of her by Lorenzo by filing a claim in the
intestate proceedings of Eusebio's Estate claiming that the sum be paid out of the
properties inherited by the defendants represents that of the successional rights of
Lorenzo as a compulsory heir of his father Eusebio.

ISSUE: Has plaintiff the right collect the sum promised by her father from her
grandfather's estate?

HELD: No. The properties inherited by the defendants from their deceased
grandfather by representation are not subject to the payment of debts and
obligations of their deceased father, who died without leaving any property. While it
is true that under the provisions of Articles 924 to 927 of the Civil Code, a child
presents his father or mother who died before him in the properties of his
grandfather or grandmother, this right of representation does not make the said
child answerable for the obligations contracted by his deceased father or mother,
because, as may be seen from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
referring to partition of inheritances, the inheritance is received with the benefit of
inventory, that is to say, the heirs only answer with the properties received from
their predecessor. The herein defendants, as heirs of Eusebio Quitco, in
representation of their father Lorenzo M. Quitco, are not bound to pay the
indebtedness of their father from whom they did not inherit anything.

You might also like