Rule 86 Case Digests

RULE 86-1SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 147999. February 27, 2004] SUI MAN HUI CHAN and GONZALO CO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and OSCAR D. MEDALLA, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.: On November 14, 1988, Napoleon C. Medalla as lessor and Ramon Chan as lessee entered into a Lease Contract over a hotel building. On August 5, 1989, Ramon Chan died. He was survived by his wife, petitioner Sui Man Hui Chan. Napoleon Medalla also died and his heir, private respondent Oscar Medalla, succeeded him as owner and lessor of the leased premises. Petitioners failed to pay the monthly rentals due on the leased premises. Medalla then sent demand letters to petitioners, but the latter still failed to pay the unpaid rentals. Medalla then asked petitioners to settle the unpaid rentals, pay the unpaid real estate taxes, and vacate the leased premises. Petitioners vacated the premises but without paying their unpaid rentals and realty taxes. Aggrieved by petitioners’ refusal to pay the amounts owing, Private respondent Medalla instituted this collection suit. Petitioners contend that any claim should be filed against the estate of Ramon Chan in an estate proceeding pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86, of the Revised Rules of Court since Ramon Chans estate is the real party-in-interest. The court declared that Section 5, Rule 86 is inapplicable in the case. It pointed out that the unpaid rentals being claimed were those for the period April 1993 to December 1998. These were incurred by petitioners and not by the late Ramon Chan, who died on August 5, 1989. ISSUE: WON the claim for the unpaid rentals must be made against the estate of Ramon Chan pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court. HELD: NO. A lease contract is not essentially personal in character. Thus, the rights and obligations therein are transmissible to the heirs. However, only obligations incurred before the decedent’s death is chargeable as a Claim Against the estate under Rule 86. In the case at bar, the unpaid rentals sought to be claimed were for the period April 1993 to December 1998, which is after the death of Ramon Chan, the original lessee, on August 5, 1989. In other words, as the unpaid rentals did not accrue during the lifetime of Ramon Chan, but well after his death, his estate might not be held liable for them. Hence, there is no indubitable basis to apply Section 5, Rule 86, of the Revised Rules of Court as petitioners urge respondents to do. Rule 86 Case # 2 [G.R. No. 117495. May 29, 1997] NELLY ACTA MARTINEZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, DOMINADOR CORRO, PASTOR CORRO, CELESTINO CORRO, LUIS CORRO, EREBERTO CORRO, JAIME CRUZ, WENCESLAO DELVO, GREGORIO DELVO, HERMEJIAS COLIBAO, JOSE OGANA and ALONSO ALBAO, respondents. BELLOSILLO, J.: FACTS: Raul Martinez was an operator of taxicab units. Private respondents worked for him as drivers. In 1992, Raul died leaving his mother, Petitioner Nelly Acta Martinez as his sole heir. Private respondents lodged a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for violation of PD 85 and illegal dismissal. They alleged that they have been regular drivers of Raul Martinez since 20 October 1989 earning no less than P400.00 per day driving twenty-four (24) hours every other day. For the duration of employment, not once did they receive a 13th month pay. After the death of Raul Martinez, petitioner took over the management and operation of the business. On or about 22 June 1992 she informed them that because of difficulty in maintaining the business, she was selling the units together with the corresponding franchises. However, petitioner did not proceed with her plan; instead, she assigned the units to other drivers. Petitioner traversed the claim for 13th month pay by contending that it was personal and therefore did not survive the death of her son. Besides, private respondents were not entitled thereto as Sec. 3, par. (e), of the Rules and Regulations Implementing P. D. 851 is explicit that employers of those who are paid on purely boundary basis are not covered therein. The relationship between her son and private respondents was not that of employer-employee but of lessor-lessee. The operation of the business ceased upon the death of her son and that she did not continue the business because she did not know how to run it. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. NLRC set aside the appealed decision. Hence, this recourse of petitioner. Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion on respondent NLRC in reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner argues that respondent NLRC acted as a probate court when it assumed jurisdiction over the estate of a deceased person, pronounced her legally entitled to succeed the deceased and ordered her to pay the money claim of private respondents. Moreover, petitioner argues that the claims of private respondents were personal to her son and thus were abated by his death. ISSUE: Whether or not the claim of private respondents should be filed in the intestate proceeding of Raul Martinez HELD: Yes. Petitioner's arguments are well-taken. The claim for 13th month pay pertains to the personal obligation of Raul Martinez which did not survive his death. The rule is settled that unless expressly assumed, labor contracts are not enforceable against the transferee of an enterprise. In the present case, petitioner does not only disavow that she continued the operation of the business of her son but also disputes the existence of labor contracts between her son and private respondents. The reason for the rule is that labor contracts are in personam, and that claims for backwages earned from the former employer cannot be filed against the new owners of an enterprise. Nor is the new operator of a business liable for claims for retirement pay of employees. Thus the claim of private respondents should have been filed instead in the intestate proceedings involving the estate of Raul Martinez in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 86, of the Rules of Court which provides in part - Sec. 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed, barred; exceptions. - All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants x x x x Under this rule, upon the death of the defendant, a testate or intestate proceeding shall be instituted in the proper court wherein all his creditors must appear and file their claims which shall be paid proportionately out of the property left by the deceased. The objective is to avoid duplicity of procedures. Hence, the ordinary actions must be taken out from the ordinary courts. Conformably with Art. 110 of the Labor Code, money claims of laborers enjoy preference over claims of other creditors in case of bankruptcy or liquidation of the employer's business. Rule 86 Case # 3 Allan Joseph Sheker vs. Estate of Alicia O Sheker, Victoria Medina, administratrix. G.R. No. 157912 December 13, 2007 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: FACTS: The RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice Sheker and thereafter issued an order for all the creditors to file their respective claims against the estate. In compliance therewith, petitioner filed on a contingent claim for agent’s commission due him in the event of the sale of certain parcels of land belonging to the estate, and reimbursement for expenses incurred and/or to be incurred by petitioner in the course of negotiating the sale of said realties. The executrix of the Estate of Alice Sheker (MEDINA) moved for the dismissal of said money claim against the estate on the grounds that (1) the requisite docket fee, as prescribed in Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, had not been paid; (2) petitioner failed to attach a certification against non-forum shopping; and (3) petitioner failed to attach a written explanation why the money claim was not filed and served personally. The RTC-Iligan City issued the assailed Order dismissing without prejudice the money claim based on the grounds advanced by respondent. Petitioner’s MR was denied.Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner maintains that the RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate proceeding the rules requiring a certification of non- forum shopping, a written explanation for non-personal filing, and the payment of docket fees upon filing of the claim. He MAKASIAR. HON. L-46095 November 23. The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. Petitioner may no longer avail of the complaint for the recovery of the balance of indebtedness against said estate. Issue: WON PNB may still pursue by civil action the recovery of the balance of indebtedness after having foreclosed the property securing the same Held: No. During the auction. The RTC dismissed PNB’s complaint. Antonio M. and (3) to rely on the mortgage exclusively. vs. However. foreclosing the same at any time before it is barred by prescription without right to file a claim for any deficiency. The court also authorized Allan to obtain a loan accommodation from PNB to be secured by a real estate mortgage over the above-mentioned parcel of land. and failing to do so will dismiss the complaint HELD: No. Court of Appeals. J. but to bring a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion is filed.xx A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the decedent’s estate. private respondent Allan Chua as special administrator of the intestate estate. which Allan did for P450. 1977 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK. PNB instituted an action with the RTC against Asuncion and Allan. the probate court appointed his son. Petitioner herein has chosen the mortgage-creditors option of extrajudicially foreclosing the mortgaged property of the Chuas. ASUNCION. more so if the claim is contingent since the claimant cannot even institute a separate action for a mere contingent claim. The CA affirmed the decision. Chua. does not require a certification against non-forum shopping. after . Upon the death of Antonio. BORROMEO.[6] the Court explained thus: x x The office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation. the mortgagee can file a civil case against the mortgagor to satisfy the deficiency. FABAR INCORPORATED.insists that Section 2. Hence. Case law holds that this rule grants to the mortgagee three distinct. This choice now bars any subsequent deficiency claim against the estate of the deceased. independent and mutually exclusive remedies that can be alternatively pursued by the mortgage creditor for the satisfaction of his credit in case the mortgagor dies. the loan had a payable balance. In Arquiza v. respondents. Rule 86 Case # 4 G. among them: (1) to waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim. No. To claim this deficiency. (2) to foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove any deficiency as an ordinary claim. A money claim against an estate is more akin to a motion for creditors’ claims to be recognized and taken into consideration in the proper disposition of the properties of the estate.R. not being an initiatory pleading. the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the real estate mortgage. ISSUE: WON a contingent claim filed in the probate proceeding must contain a certification against non-forum shopping. PNB appealed contending that under prevailing jurisprudence. Rule 72 of the ROC provides that rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only in a suppletory manner. JOSE MA. petitioner. herein petitioner‘s contingent money claim. BARREDO. A motion is not an independent right or remedy. when the proceeds from an extrajudicial foreclosure is not enough to pay off the loan. PNB was the highest bidder.: Facts: Spouses Antonio and Asuncion Chua were the owners of a parcel of land covered by a TCT and registered in their names.00 with interest.000. but is confined to incidental matters in the progress of a cause. It relates to some question that is collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy. CARMEN B. BORROMEO and TOMAS L. For failure to pay the loan in full. 1979 and that the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings were effected after his death. The power to foreclose a mortgage is not an ordinary agency that contemplated exclusively the representation of the principal by the agent but is primarily an authority conferred upon the mortgagee for the latter's own protection. BICOL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION. as Special Administratrix of the Estate of the Deceased ALFREDO E. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court aforecited. While it is true that the question of the validity of said mortgage and consequently the extrajudicial foreclosure thereof was raised in a separate proceeding before the trial court the pendency of such separate civil suit can be no obstacle to the issuance of the writ of possession which is a ministerial act of the trial court after a title on the property has been consolidated in the mortgagee. vs. It is pointed out that Dr. the public auction sale was made on May 11.R. Jacob died on March 9. When it fell due. DE JACOB. Centenera secured a loan from the Bicol Savings & Loan Association. 3135. is authorized only because of the special power of attorney inserted in the mortgage deed. . On November 5. and. No. with costs against petitioner. ISSUE: WON an extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage may proceed even after the death of the mortgagor . 1978 when the SPA was revoked. The mortgage was annotated on the title. he failed to pay. Sometime in 1972 Jorge Centenera was appointed as administrator of Hacienda Jacob until January 1. 1982 a definite deed of sale of the property was executed in favor of the respondent bank as the sole and highest bidder. That right existed independently of said stipulation and is clearly recognized in Section 7. de Jacob who was subsequently named administratrix of the estate of Dr. Petitioner argues that such extrajudicial foreclosure can only be prosecuted during the lifetime of Dr. WHEREFORE. (2) to foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove the deficiency as an ordinary claim. Chuas estate. Jacob was the registered owner of a parcel of land. JACOB. petitions in G.petitioner foreclosed the property securing the mortgage in its favor.R. From the foregoing it is clear that the mortgagee does not lose its light to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage even after the death of the mortgagor as a third alternative under Section 7. did not depend on the authority in the deed of mortgage executed by the latter. CA. 1979. acting through his attorney-in-fact.YES RULING: From the provision of Sec. petitioner. respondents. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. before it is barred by prescription. GANCAYCO J. 1990 TOMASA VDA. Nos. The right of the mortgagee bank to extra judicially foreclose the mortgage after the death of the mortgagor. The bank foreclosed the real estate mortgage and the corresponding provisional sale of the mortgaged property to the respondent bank was effected. 88602 April 6. 7 Rule 86 it is clearly recognized that a mortgagee has three remedies that may be alternately availed of in case the mortgagor dies. ROSALES. that is. (3) to rely on the mortgage exclusively. Alfredo E. Jacob contends that the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and the sale of the property mortgaged under the amended real estate mortgage after the mortgagor died are null and void. or other security and foreclose the same at anytime. to wit: (1) to waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim. AND LORENZO C. That power survives the death of the mortgagor. 88602 and 89544 are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. JORGE CENTENERA. as amended. Tomasa Vda. Rule 86 Case # 5 G. without the right to file a claim for any deficiency. It follows that in this case no further liability remains on the part of respondents and the late Antonio M. Jacob for the reason that such kind of foreclosure under Act No. and that said special power of attorney cannot extend beyond the lifetime of the supposed mortgagor.: FACTS: Dr. No.SO ORDERED. Heirs of Pizarro filed their opposition to said motion and also filed a claim against the estate of the deceased Garcia in the amount of P350. Luis Tan filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that it is spurious and barred for having been filed beyond the six (6) month period set in the notice for the filing of creditors' claim. The first publication of the notice in the Mindanao Times was on March 30. Petition alleged that he is the only surviving son of deceased Garcia who died intestate. ASUNCION. respondent court issued an order dated June 1. – No. Issue: WON the claims were filed out of time. They claimed that their deceased predecessor was the vendee of 1/2 of the subject property by virtue of an extrajudicial settlement of estate and deed of absolute sale executed by Vicente Tan. No.98 as of May 13. SR. Davao City which is in the possession of the heirs of Pizarro. Respondent court dismissed both claims of the petitioners on the ground that they are barred for having been filed out of time. J. 1977 PNB vs. 1979 and March 29. L-51278 May 9. A joint motion to proceed with the determination of the heirs of Garcia was filed. JOSE MA. 1978. in this case the trial court set the period for the filing of the claims within six (6) months from the date of the first publication of the notice.: Luis Tan filed petition for the issuance of letters of administration in favor of a certain Atilano.000 representing services allegedly rendered by their deceased father and P200. Held: The range of the period specified in the rule is intended to give the probate court the discretion to fix the period for the filing of claims. Thus the two claims of petitioners against the estate which were filed on March 5. J. HON. BORROMEO MAKASIAR. Luis Tan filed a motion to exclude the Heirs of Pizarro on the ground that they do not even claim to be the heirs of the deceased Garcia and that the extrajudicial deed of partition and deed of absolute sale is spurious and simulated. 1988 HEIRS OF RAMON PIZARRO. CFI of Davao and LUIS TAN Gancayco.R. 1979 respectively were filed on time. Heirs of Pizarro opposed on the sole ground that it is without procedural basis.R. Rule 86 Case # 7 G. CARMEN B. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. The probate court is permitted by the rule to set the period provided it is not less than six (6) months nor more than twelve (12) months from the date of the first publication of the notice thereof.000 for payment of realty and income taxes. BARREDO. Since the notice issued and the period set by the trial court was not in accordance with the requirements of Section 2. After the judicial administrator had qualified and his inventory of the assets of the late Garcia was approved. that deceased left a parcel of land in CM Recto. Heirs of Pizarro opposed the petition. L-46095 November 23. Petitioner correctly observed that the trial court thereby shortened the period set by the law. Such period once fixed by the court is mandatory. 1979 requiring the filing of creditors' claim against the said estate within the period of six (6) months from the date of the first publication. BORROMEO and TOMAS L. Heirs of Pizarro prayed that letters of administration of be issued in favor of anyone of them.: PNB granted Fabar Incorporated various credit accommodations and advances. The purpose of the law. It was obviously short of the minimum limit of six (6) months provided for by the law.449.. FABAR INCORPORATED. vs. Subsequently parties herein entered into a compromise whereby petitioners agreed to withdraw their opposition to the appointment of private respondent's recommendee and for the intestate proceedings to proceed in due course. HON. CONSOLACION. However. Rule 86 Case # 6 G. 1977. is to insure a speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased person and the early delivery of the property to the person entitled to the same. The credit accommodations are secured by the joint and several . Said credit accommodations had an outstanding balance of P8. in fixing a period within which claims against an estate must be presented. what should then apply is the period as provided for by the rules which is not less than six months nor more than twelve (12) months from the date of first publication of notice.169. which is the precursor of Section 6. Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court. et al. Villarama. Barredo. would deprive him of his substantive rights provided by Article 1216 of the New Civil Code. Barredo died. PNB asked for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case as against all the defendants. contending that the dismissal should only be as against the deceased defendant Manuel H. CHUA QUISUMBING. Rule 86 Case # 8 G. CHUA and Mrs. No. proceed against the surviving solidary debtors without necessity of filing a claim in the estate of the deceased debtors. if he so chooses. that: It is evident from the foregoing that Section 6 of Rule 87 (of the Old Rules of Court) provides the procedure should the creditor desire to go against the deceased debtor. " The choice is undoubtedly left to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. CHUA as Special Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the late ANTONIO M. as was made apparent in the aforequoted decision. A cursory perusal of Section 6. this Court said. making it a condition precedent for any collection action against the surviving debtors to prosper. Said provision merely sets up the procedure in enforcing collection in case a creditor chooses to pursue his claim against the estate of the deceased solidary debtor. Rule 87 of the old Rules of Court. which provides: Where the obligation of the decedent is solidary with another debtor. Respondent Court dismissed the suit for money claim in view of the said death citing the provisions of Section 6. Issue: Was the dismissal proper? Held: The dismissal is not proper. the Civil Code expressly allow the creditor to proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. ASUNCION M. In construing Section 6. should the creditor choose to demand payment from the latter. For to require the creditor to proceed against the estate..: . Before the case could be decided. Inc. In case of the death of one of the solidary debtors. could be entertained to the extent that failure to observe the same would deprive the court jurisdiction to 'take cognizance of the action against the surviving debtors. Upon the other hand.. Manuel H. Barredo.signatures of private respondents herein and Manuel H. 2001 PNB vs. without prejudice to the right of the estate to recover contribution from the other debtor . It is not mandatory for him to have the case dismissed as against the surviving debtors and file its claim against the estate of the deceased solidary debtor. vs. Said provision gives the creditor the right to "proceed against anyone of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. It is crystal clear that Article 1216 of the New Civil Code is the applicable provision in this matter. Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court reveals that nothing therein prevents a creditor from proceeding against the surviving solidary debtors. Barredo. ALLAN M. J. Counsel for private respondents informed the respondent Court of said death. in the case of Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. CA. he (the creditor) may. the claim of plaintiff may be filed with the estate proceedings of the decedent. but there is certainly nothing in the said provision making compliance with such procedure a condition precedent before an ordinary action against the surviving debtors.. the claim shall be filed against the decedent as if he were the only debtor. Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court. The rule has been set forth that a creditor (in a solidary obligation) has the option whether to file or not to file a claim against the estate of the solidary debtor. For failure to pay their obligations notwithstanding repeated demands a collection suit was filed against all private respondents and Manuel H.R. 121597 June 29. 298986. Lorilla covered by TCT No.: Respondent Commercial Credit Corporation (now known as PENCAPITAL) filed a complaint with the RTC Makati for a sum of money against Sanyu Machineries Agencies. WHEREFORE. Antonio M. the levy was duly annotated on the certificate of title concerned. RTC dismissed PNB’s complaint which CA affirmed. and (3) to rely on the mortgage exclusively. Allan obtained a loan of P450. and several other defendants. Held: The rule in extrajudicial foreclosure sale or ordinary debts does not apply to a foreclosure of mortgage arising out of a settlement of estate. (2) to foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove any deficiency as an ordinary claim.CA. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No.000 from petitioner PNB to be secured by a REM over the above-mentioned parcel of land. 5262 in favor of PENCAPITAL.825. PNB instituted an action against both wife and son in his capacity as special administrator.R. Sanyu Chemical Corporation. No. in view of the death of defendant Elias Lorilla. Issue: Can PNB pursue by civil action the recovery of the balance of indebtedness after having foreclosed the property securing the same? NO. independent and mutually exclusive remedies that can be alternatively pursued by the mortgage creditor for the satisfaction of his credit in case the mortgagor dies. among them: (1) to waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim. the probate court appointed his son. The levy in favor of PENCAPITAL was carried over to the new certificate of title. 298986 in the name of defendant Lorilla.63. For failure to pay the loan in full. (now deceased) who had acted as sureties for the two corporate debtors. During the pendency of Civil Case No. the loan had a payable balance of P372. J. 5262. PENCAPITAL obtained a writ of attachment on the real property of defendant Elias L. was proper. RTC Makati rendered judgment in Civil Case No. Upon Antonio’s death. Hence. among whom was Elias Lorilla. To claim this deficiency. Lorilla executed a dacion en pago over the property attached in favor of the JRMDC.. JRMDC filed suit against PENCAPITAL for the cancellation of the latter's levy on the property in question with the RTC Pasig but was denied by the RTC. The plain result of adopting the last mode of foreclosure is that the creditor waives his right to recover any deficiency from the estate. TCT No. P-142.000 from PNB secured by REM on the aforesaid parcel of land. PNB has chosen the mortgage-creditor’s option of extra judicially foreclosing the mortgaged property of the Chuas. 298986 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. Chua. the instant petition is hereby DENIED. 118655 April 12. Sec. ISSUE: WON the denial of the action for annulment of judgment. Rule 86 Case # 9 G. foreclosing the same at any time before it is barred by prescription without right to file a claim for any deficiency. YES . This choice now bars any subsequent deficiency claim against the estate of the deceased. 114067 in the name of JRMDC. special administrator of Antonio’s intestate estate. Elias L. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION et al QUISUMBING. 2000 HEIRS OF ELIAS LORILLA vs. Inc. It follows that in this case no further liability remains on the part of respondents and the late Antonio M. RTC Makati issued a writ of execution and PENCAPITAL thereafter proceeded against the property covered by TCT No.Spouses Chua were the owners of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. The court also authorized Allan to obtain a loan accommodation of P550. after it foreclosed the property securing the mortgage in its favor. After the auction sale. Chua’s estate. PNB may no longer avail of the complaint for the recovery of the balance of indebtedness against said estate. Allan Chua. the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the REM. 7 of Rule 86 is applicable to the controversy at hand which grants to the mortgagee three distinct. 5262. Moreover in this case. Vda. If he died "before final judgment in the Court of First Instance. It does not cover a situation where the court was reportedly informed of the death of a party only after final judgment.: FACTS: Ricardo Sikat is the judicial administrator of the intestate estate of Mariano P. executed by the late Pedro Villanueva in favor of his father. 5262 before the Makati Court. Section 5 of Rule 86 loses its pertinence to the case at bar. Evidence was adduced acknowledging indebtedness.R. 1909. In the present case. L-35925 November 10. Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that a client is bound by the conduct. Judicial Admin of the I/E Mariano P. de Villanueva denied each and every allegation. negligence and mistakes of his counsel. Judicial Adm. WHEREFORE. was no longer part of the estate of Elias Lorilla at the time of his death. and it was transferred to JRMDC by virtue of the dacion en pago executed by Elias Lorilla. Lorilla continued to be represented by counsel of record. absent such notice. Concepcion. Thus. 21 of Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court sets out the procedure that should be followed after the death of the defendant in a case. Lorillas counsel failed in his duty to promptly inform the court of the death of his client. Here. however. however. For this reason. 5262 was rendered. Issue: WON the claim of Mariano P. Sikat filed a complaint against Vda de Villanueva praying that the decision of the committee on claims and appraisal in the intestate proceedings of the aforesaid Pedro Villanueva with regard to the credit of the late Mariano P. Neither could the petitioners have been made aware of the trial courts judgment adverse to their father. Rule 86 Case # 11 G. No. and set up a special defense of prescription. Sec. Villanueva be confirmed by the court. Apparently. Lorilla was deemed to have been validly served notice of the judgment. who did not bother to inform the parties concerned of Elias Lorillas death. Villanueva. 1932 RICARDO SIKAT. HELD: YES . until the Writ of Execution was issued and the levy thereof on August 5." the action should be dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff presenting his claim in the settlement of the estate of the deceased in accordance with and as required by Section 5 of Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court. defendant-appellee. The claim becomes a mere incident in the testamentary or intestate proceedings of the deceased where the whole matter may be fully terminated jointly with the settlement and distribution of the estate. VILLA-REAL. The trial court could not be expected to know or take judicial notice of the death of Lorilla. the late Mariano P. For it speaks of a situation where a party dies after the entry of the judgment or order of the court. J. the assailed decision of the CA is hereby AFFIRMED. Quiteria Vda. the records do not show if any notice of death was filed by Atty. the action has to be dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff thereafter presenting his claim as a money claim in the settlement of the estate of the deceased defendant. de Villanueva is the judicial administratrix of the intestate estate of Pedro Villanueva. As far as the Makati Court was concerned. Likewise. counsel of record of Elias Lorilla in Civil Case No. Villanueva vs. For Elias Lorilla had earlier executed a dacion en pago over this property in favor of JRMDC. as the Rules require. QUITERIA VIUDA DE VILLANUEVA. the document dated September 22. Atty. for all notices and orders of the court were sent to Lorillas counsel of record. even before judgment in Civil Case No. Concepcion to serve notice on the court and the adverse parties regarding his clients death binds herein petitioners as much as the client himself could be so bound. Villanueva.HELD: As contemplated in Section 21 of Rule 3. neither the Makati Court nor PENTACAPITAL were made aware of the death of Elias Lorilla. of the I/E Pedro Villanueva. Thesubject property was validly transferred to JRMDC already. Hence petitioners could not claim that they were deprived of their lawful inheritance without due process of law. Alfredo Concepcion. the SC found that the property which petitioners claim as their lawful inheritance. and that upon service of a copy of the decision on said counsel at the latters address. Section 7 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court will not apply to the present case. the property in question had already been taken out of the estate of Elias Lorilla. 1993. The failure of Atty. Villanueva's estate against Pedro Villanueva estate has already prescribed. 1961 PAREDES. Ricaforte. Teodulo R. but not under the widow but to a certain Atty. according to section 690.45 is barred by the statute of limitations. this court laid down the following doctrine: The purpose of the law. and such creditor permits more than three years to elapse before instituting the same proceedings in the competent court. PNB filed in the administration proceedings. 1954. cited in the aforementioned case of Santos vs. The SC held that whenever a creditor's claim presented in the intestate proceedings of the estate of his debtor is not allowed because the court has no jurisdiction. 573). On November 9. Villanueva's estate against Pedro Villanueva's estate prescribed? In re Estate of De Dios (24 Phil. That the said claim is barred forever on the ground that notice to creditors having been published in the MORNING TIMES of Cebu City. to claims against the estates of deceased persons. On the hearing. with reference to the extraordinary prescription established for claims against deceased persons. Manarang. 16. 1951. After taking oath.This court has so held in Santos vs. The speedy settlement of the estate of deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to the residue by way of inheritance or legacy after the debts and expenses of administration have been paid. it was agreed to place the estate under administration. which. has the claim of Mariano P. 1940. the maximum period for the presentation of claims against the estate of a deceased person is 18 months from the time fixed by the committee on claims and appraisal in its notice. opposed the alleging that he had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therein. 20.347. by analogy. and this period may be extended one month if a creditor applies for it within six months after the first term. 1953. so that the residue may be delivered to the persons entitled thereto without their being afterwards called upon to respond in actions for claims. SC had seen that under section 689 of the Code. in its application. Rule 86 Case # 12 IN RE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF PASCUAL VILLANUEVA. Pascual Vilanueva. On July 20. MAURICIA G. and its purpose is to settle the affairs of the estate with dispatch.. L-18403 September 30. It is commonly termed the statute of non-claims. DE VILLANUEVA vs. issued the following Notice to Creditors to all persons having claims for money against the decedent requiring them to file their claims with the clerk of court within six but not beyond twelve months after date of the first publication of this notice. 1953 which was due and demandable since Dec. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK GR No. in fixing a period within which claims against an estate must be presented. a newspaper of general circulation. He also argued that the same indebtedness has already been paid. a newspaper of general circulation in on November 16. as follows: It cannot be questioned that this section supersedes the ordinary limitation of actions provided for in chapter 3 of the Code. It is strictly confined. is to insure a speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased person and the early delivery of the property. 1950 the Clerk of the Agusan CFI. which expired on November 16. for more than ten (10) Years have elapsed since the cause of action accrued up to present time. is the ruling spirit of our probate law. applying the provisions of section 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure. the claim is barred by laches. Manarang. on Nov.847. under the ordinary statute of limitations. J: FACTS: The widow Mauricia Villanueva petitioned the CFI of Agusan for letters of administration for the administration of her deceased husband. to the persons entitled to receive it. Creditor's Claim for the total amount of P1. 1950. 1950 . he entered upon the performance of his duties. The administrator. and has been almost universally adopted as part of the probate law of the United States. The above notice contained the usual order for publication thereof (once a week for three consecutive weeks) which was effected. in treating of the period of prescription established in section 689 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Now then. on November 5. have not yet prescribed.45 due as of June 5. 23 and 30. that the caused action for the recovery of the aforesaid amount of P1. thru the Morning Times of City. 23 and 30. If the judgment debtor dies after such levy. L-32824 March 31. Rule 86 Case # 13 EVANGELISTA VS. 1971 38 SCRA 379 MAKALINTAL. a writ of execution was issued and his property was levied by the sheriff. Even prior to her appointment. not even its employees in the Branch Office in Butuan City. respectively. the money judgment must be presented as a claim against the estate. having been notified of the scheduled auction sale of the property subject of the levy.45 . which was a full compliance with the requirements of the Rules. appellant contends that it did not know of such administration proceedings. there was no period to extend. Section 5 of Rule 86 provides that a judgment for money against the decedent must be filed with the court in the proceeding for the settlement of the estate. that Sec. may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment in case death occurs “after execution is actually levied. La Proveedora. intestate proceeding for the settlement of his estate was filed and petitioner was appointed administratrix. she informed the sheriff of the death of Abad Santos and demanded that he desist from the sale. creditor cannot be permitted to file his claim beyond the period fixed in the notice on the ground that he had no knowledge of the administration proceedings The period fixed in the notice lapsed on November 16. In other words. The property levied upon in case the judgment debtor dies after the entry of judgment. the judgment against his should be presented as a claim against his estate. The said order was appealed to the CA which certified it saying that the issue if purely of law. the cut-off date is the date of actual levy of execution. LA PROVEEDORA GR No. the property levied upon may be sold. more than four (4) Years after the opposition of the claim presented by the administrator. and the sale at auction carried out by the sheriff is null and void. 2.” On the other hand. 347. She filed a motion with the court but it was denied and the property was sold to the highest bidder. 2006 PANGANIBAN. ISSUE: Whether or not PNB is barred to claim the amount of P1. the same had elapsed. It is to be noted that the petition for Letters of Administration and the Notice to Creditors were duly published in the Manila Daily Bulletin and in the Morning Times. Rule 86 Case # 14 STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY VS REPUBLIC-ASAHI GLASS CORPORATION GR No. Since in this case the death of the deceased preceded the levy of execution on his properties. The CFI ruled against PNB and denied its subsequent reconsideration. Agusan. upon cause shown and on such terms as equitable. 1953 or about 1 year and 8 months late. Issue: W/N the judgment must be presented as a claim against the estate if the debtor dies before the levy of execution? Ruling: Judgment for money against the decedent must be presented as a claim against the estate where the judgment debtor dies before levy on execution of his properties. It is quite true that the Courts can extend the period within which to present claims against the estate. Hence. was its lack of knowledge of administration proceeding. This notwithstanding. as in this case. 147561 June 22. 1951 and the claim was filed on July 20. among others. that its failure to present the claiming with the period stated in the notice. J: Facts: Manuel Abad Santos died and subsequently. but such extension should be granted under special circumstances. allows the filing of claims even if the period stated in the notice to creditors elapsed. if before. Meanwhile. subject only to such preferences as are provided by law. But the judgment creditor will share the estate with other creditors. filed a Petition for an Extension alleging.YES HELD: Publication of notice to creditors is a constructive notice to the world. even after the period limited has elapsed. the judgment itself being conclusive. CJ: . although of course the same need no longer be proved.The appellant PNB. Rule 87 of the Rules. The lower did not find any justifiable reason to give the extension and for one thing. Death is not a defense that he or his estate can set up to wipe out the obligations under the performance bond. Apparently. express or implied. and judgment for .00. . If not filed. Issue: Whether or not the death of Santos extinguished his liability under the surety bond? Ruling: Meaning of Money claims against a deceased debtor Money claims are claims for money. debt or interest thereon upon a liability contracted by the decedent before his death. Later. which is not then acting as a probate court. JDS does so and files the required compliance bond with Stronghold Insurance acting as surety. Hence. (21a) In relation to this. Angel Brazil and Ernesto Pagaygay were jeepney drivers of jeepneys owned by Melencio Gabriel. Thus. his death did not result in the extinguishment of those obligations or liabilities. they were dismissed. Consequently. deposit fee. What is extinguished is only the obligee’s action or suit filed before the court.00 to cover police protection. Action on contractual money claims. whatever monetary liabilities or obligations Santos had under his contracts with respondent were not intransmissible by their nature. or contingent. J: Facts: Nelson Bilon. Eventually. 146989 February 7. On April 30. car wash. by stipulation. 20. it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. 1995. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.3M the bond is 795k. exceptions. which merely passed on to his estate. All claims for money against the decedent arising from contract. Section 5 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court expressly allows the prosecution of money claims arising from a contract against the estate of a deceased debtor.. In the present case. the drivers were required to pay an additional P50. and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death. not due. or by provision of law. and garage fees. when the drivers reported to work. therefore. The three drivers refused to pay the additional P50. The owner (Santos) of JDS dies and JDS disappears. Rule 86 Case # 15 GABRIEL VS BILON GR No. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. prompting RAG to rescind the contract and demand the compliance bond.03M. Rule 3 In relation to Section 5. Issue: Whether or not the money claims of the respondent should be filed against the estate of petitioner? Held: Respondents’ monetary claim shall be governed by Section 20 (then Section 21). Section 5. The contract is 5. SEC. be presented with exception of funeral expenses and expenses incurred on the last sickness of the decedent. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the drivers and ordered Gabriel to pay the drivers their backwages and their separation pay amounting to about a total of P1. 5. petitioner as surety cannot use his death to escape its monetary obligation under its performance bond.Facts: Republic Asahi Glass contracts with JDS for the construction of roadways and drainage systems in RAG's compound. SHI refuses to pay the bond claiming that the death of JDS owner extinguishes the obligation. Those claims are not actually extinguished. barred. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court states: SEC. On April 18. 1997. express or implied. Claims contracted after his death cannot . the LA promulgated its decision and on the same day sent a copy thereof to Gabriel but Flordeliza (wife of Gabriel) refused to receive the copy. They are paying P400/day for their boundary. they were not given any jeepney to drive. Claims which must be filed under the notice.. said money claims must be filed against the estate of petitioner Melencio Gabriel. 1997. whether the same be due. Gabriel died on April 4. When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract. JDS falls fully behind schedule. 2007 AZCUNA. The three drivers sued Gabriel for illegal dismissal. SO ORDERED. the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case. J. the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a) Law b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) . except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants.. that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. WHEREFORE. we hold that the death of appellant Bayotas extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the act complained of.: FACTS: Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was convicted of Rape. in this regard. However. must be filed within the time limited in the notice. In such case.e. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused. as explained in Number 2 above. the appeal is hereby dismissed without qualification. quasi-contract. if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict.. 1994 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed. No. Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. 4.R. Finally. Counsel for the accused-appellant.money against the decedent. ROGELIO BAYOTAS y CORDOVA. i.e) Quasi-delicts 3. Pending appeal of his conviction. Corollarily. Where the civil liability survives. . the Solicitor General expressed his view that the death of accused-appellant did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense charged. civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore. otherwise they are barred forever. Bayotas died. 1992 dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. GERRY LIPATA y ORTIZA. Consequently. opposed the view of the Solicitor General arguing that the death of the accused while judgment of conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil penalties. Executor/ Administrator if based on law. Appellant. the appeal of the late Rogelio Bayotas is DISMISSED with costs de oficio.R. Appellee. ISSUE: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability? RULING: 1.: . on the other hand." 2. As opined by Justice Regalado. CARPIO. Rule 86 Case # 18 G. J. plaintiff-appellee. vs. No. Applying this set of rules to the case at bench. conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code. in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction. ROMERO. Consequently.e.. vs. accused-appellant. the money claims of respondents must be filed against the estate of petitioner Melencio Gabriel. depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above: Estate of the Accused if based on Contract. i. Thus. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. in accordance with the above Rules. Rule 85 Case # 17 G. 2016 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. the Supreme Court in its Resolution of May 20. rape. 102007 September 2. an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1. 200302 April 20. quasi-delict. the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused. his heirs cannot recover even a centavo from the amounts awarded by the CA. 164108 May 8. and his only daughter. results in an injury to person or real or personal property. REYES. The criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of appellant Gerry Lipata y Ortiza are declared EXTINGUISHED by his death prior to final judgment. No. Alleging lapses on the part of private respondent in her administration of the estate. Rule 85 Case # 19 G. the Manila RTC issued an order denying the manifestation/motion. Set a deadline for the submission by private respondent of the required inventory of the decedent’s estate. there were two pending civil cases against Benedicto involving the petitioners. However. the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused.C. Neither was there any reservation for filing a separate civil case for the cause of action arising from quasi-delict. Ruling: We concluded that "upon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction. grounded as it is on the criminal. the heirs of Cueno should file a separate civil case in order to obtain financial retribution for their loss.R. the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished. vs. Petitioners. However. the accused died on 13 February 2011. J. the above-mentioned two pending claims then being litigated before the Bacolod City courts. FIRST FARMERS HOLDING CORPORATION. exemplary damages. On 2 January 2002. LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION. The CA affirmed the CA decision. At the time of his death. No. The lack of a separate civil case for the cause of action arising from quasidelict leads us to the conclusion that. by provision of law. Regional Trial Court of Manila. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. a decade after Cueno’s death. THE HONORABLE AMOR A.R. Under the present Rules. we SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated on 31 May 2011 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G. incomplete and inaccurate. actual damages. the separate civil action must be filed against the estate of the accused pursuant to Section 5. moral damages. 2. Rule 111 ([of the then applicable] 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended) file a separate civil action. The accused is hereby adjudged to pay the heirs of Rolando Cueno the civil indemnity. if the act or omission complained of arises from contract. and 3. and assailing the inventory that had been submitted thus far as unverified. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. Branch 21 and ADMINISTRATRIX JULITA CAMPOS BENEDICTO. The CA ordered the immediate elevation of the records to this Court in its 30 June 2011 Resolution. 04461. upon extinction of the civil liability ex delicto desires to recover damages from the same act or omission complained of. private respondent included as among the liabilities. on the ground that petitioners are not interested parties within the contemplation of the Rules of Court to intervene in the intestate proceedings. TINGA. CR-H. . Respondents.Facts: The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years. The source of obligation upon which the separate civil action is premised determines against whom the same shall be enforced. In the List of Liabilities attached to the inventory. there was no separate civil case instituted prior to the criminal case. WHEREFORE.: FACTS: Benedicto died intestate and was survived by his wife. 2009 ALFREDO HILADO. he must subject to Section 1. Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. The PAO filed a notice of appeal on behalf of appellant on 10 June 2011. administratrix Benedicto." However "if the private offended party. Reliefs sought: 1. If the act or omission complained of arises from quasidelict or. On the other hand. That they be furnished with copies of all processes and orders pertaining to the intestate proceedings and also the manifestation/motion. Presiding Judge. this time predicated not on the felony previously charged but on other sources of obligation. the separate civil action must be filed against the executor or administrator of the estate pursuant to Section 1." We proceeded to distinguish the defendants among the different causes of action. " In order to enforce the claims against the estate the fiscal presented a petition dated June 21. Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict do not fall within the class of claims to be filed under the notice to creditors required under Rule 86. PRICE. this Court declared as final and executory the order for the payment by the estate of the estate and inheritance taxes.: FACTS: In a Civil Case. being as they are civil. charges and penalties.058. the proper remedy is to seek the removal of the administrator in accordance with Section 2. 1. the existence of the pending cases filed by the petitioners. J. Rule 82. vs. SP No. RULING: Yes. survive the death of the decedent and may be commenced against the administrator pursuant to Section 1. but a person whose claim against the estate is still contingent is not the party entitled to do so. issued by the CFI of Leyte in. GARLITOS. amounting to P40. 11178. LABRADOR. Indeed. under the aegis of the notice to creditors to be issued by the court immediately after granting letters of administration and published by the administrator immediately after the issuance of such notice. the interest of the creditor in the estate relates to the preservation of sufficient assets to answer for the debt. as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of the late Walter Scott Price. 1961. No. 10. 7(b) of Rule 89 concerning the petition to authorize the executor or administrator to sell personal estate. was successfully impleaded in Civil Case No. and SIMEONA K. L-18994 June 29. 1963 MELECIO R. Section 1 of Rule 83 requires the administrator to return to the court a true inventory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of the deceased within three (3) months from appointment. Rule 87. (2) Sec. HON. petitioner. motion should be denied. We can readily conclude that notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72. mortgage or otherwise encumber real estates. We do not doubt that there are reliefs available to compel an administrator to perform either duty. in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte. we do not doubt that a creditor. whereas the other civil case was already pending review before this Court at the time of Benedicto’s death. Nasutra and Traders Royal Bank. and. After all. . as Commissioner of Internal Revenue. However. 14 entitled "In the matter of the Intestate Estate of the Late Walter Scott Price. or to sell. DOMINGO. whether express or implied. even a contingent one. even if contingent. Rule 90 regarding the hearing for the application for an order for distribution of the estate residue.R. while Section 8 of Rule 85 requires the administrator to render an account of his administration within one (1) year from receipt of the letters testamentary or of administration. (3) Sec. Nonetheless. Rule 85 in reference to the time and place of examining and allowing the account of the executor or administrator. Concerning complaints against the general competence of the administrator. it appears that the claims against Benedicto were based on tort. the records indicate that the intestate estate of Benedicto. respondents. WHEREFORE. as they arose from his actions in connection with Philsucom. Had the claims of petitioners against Benedicto been based on contract. After all. LORENZO C. These actions. would have the personality to seek such relief. to the court below for the execution of the judgment.ISSUE: Is the denial by the RTC proper. intervention as set forth under Rule 19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent whose credit is based on a contingent claim. as represented by its administrator. in the instances that the Rules on Special Proceedings do require notice to any or all "interested parties" the petitioners as "interested parties" will be entitled to such notice.55. even the administratrix has acknowledged in her submitted inventory. The definition of "intervention" under Rule 19 simply does not accommodate contingent claims. the petition is DENIED. While the provision is silent as to who may seek with the court the removal of the administrator. The instances when notice has to be given to interested parties are provided in: ( Festin) (1) Sec. and the general competence or good faith of the administrator is necessary to fulfill such purpose. Rule 85 Case # 20 G. then they should have filed their claim. Hodges) praying for an accounting of the business covering the Ba-Ta Subdivision. execution is not proper remedy to enforce payment. and PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK. 1969 seeking: a) to set aside respondent judge's order of February 26. and b) to order PCIB to pay the judgment credit in Civil Case No. therefore. therefore. 2700). claimant should PRESENT CLAIM before probate court. is for the claimant to present a claim before the probate court so that said court may order the administrator to pay the amount thereof.The petition was. that the petitioner has no clear right to execute the judgment for taxes against the estate of the deceased Walter Scott Price. Appeal is the remedy. MAGNO. 1989 ANGELINA PUENTEVELLA ECHAUS. However. as Administrator of the Testate Estate of the late Charles Newton Hodges. 1967 in SP No. The ordinary procedure by which to settle claims of indebtedness against the estate of a deceased person. 6628 is now final and executory and the execution thereof becomes a matter of right under Rule 39. respondents. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for mandamus dated April 21. takes place by operation of law. Ruling: No. 1672 (estate proceedings of deceased C. Act No. AVELINA A. In the absence of any showing that respondent judge who is taking cognizance of the estate proceedings had already allowed the administrator to dispose of the estate and to pay the debts and legacies of the deceased. Furthermore. C. RENE ECHAUS. ISSUE: WON the Petition for Execution is proper. The court stressed that the time for paying debts (and legacies) is to be fixed by the probate court having jurisdiction over the estate of the deceased (Sec. RAMON BLANCO. It is clear. Rene Echaus filed a complaint on May 30. The duty to order the execution of a final and executory judgment is ministerial and the failure of respondent judge to issue such order is a proper case for mandamus. Mandamus not available – immediate payment of claim by the administrator is NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT. both the claim of the Government for inheritance taxes and the claim of the intestate for services rendered have already become overdue and demandable is well as fully liquidated. without costs. assisted by her husband. denied by the court which held that the execution is not justifiable as the Government is indebted to the estate under administration in the amount of P262.N.200 has already been appropriated for the purpose by a corresponding law (Rep. 1967.R. On January 21. 15. N. However. assisted by her husband. No. RULING: No. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered the private respondent to pay the amount indicated in the decision. ISSUE: WON Petition for Mandamus should be granted. When judgment in a civil case has become final and executory. in her own behalf and as Administratrix of the Estate of Luis Puentevella. the petition for certiorari and mandamus is not the proper remedy for the petitioner. the recovery of her share in the profits and remaining assets of their business and the payment of expenses and moral and exemplary damages. 6628.N. in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1279 and 1290 of the Civil Code. Under the above circumstances. Rule 86 Case 21 G. FACTS: The petitioner herein. The petition is. . the writ was not enforced as plaintiff opted to file a motion dated February 20. L-30453 December 4. Angelina Puentevella Echaus. therefore. It is the contention of petitioner that the judgment in Civil Case No. Hodges died which resulted to the filing of a petition for the settlement of his estate. and both debts are extinguished to the concurrent amount. however. as Administratrix of the Testate Estate of the late Linnie Jane Hodges. as Judge of CFI Iloilo. in her own behalf and as Administratrix of the intestate estate of her deceased father Luis Puentevella. dismissed. The petition to set aside the above orders of the court below and for the execution of the claim of the Government against the estate must be denied for lack of merit. 1969. Hodges) for the payment of the judgment. HON. Another ground for denying the petition of the provincial fiscal is the fact that the court having jurisdiction of the estate had found that the claim of the estate against the Government has been recognized and an amount of P262. Compensation. Rule 18). a writ of mandamus will not issue to compel him to order payment of petitioner's claim. the same trial court issued an order granting plaintiff's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution against PCIB. petitioner. as an inheritance tax. 1962 against Charles Newton Hodges (C.200. Section 1 of the Rules of Court. vs. ILDEFONSO JAPITANA and ANTONIO DOLORICON. 1971 is made permanent and the cash bond filed by the petitioner in connection therewith is ordered returned to him. vs.Rule 86 Case # 22 G. NISTAL as Municipal Judge of Esperanza. and to order the return of the carabaos. The respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss prompting Mr. Henson filed on February 23.R. petitioner. The ancillary matter does not cure a fatal defect in the complaint for the main action is for the recovery of an outstanding debt of the late lsabelo Nacar due respondent Japitana. respondents. No. is only ancillary to the main action. JR. BRIONES. Actually only four (4) carabaos were attached because three (3) carabaos had earlier been slaughtered during the rites preceding the burial of the late Isabelo Nacar. however. No. FACTS: Respondent Ruby J. WHEREFORE. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF of Agusan del Sur. the petition is hereby granted. were actually his carabaos. subject of the writ of attachment. 1999 a petition for the allowance of the will of her late mother. a cause of action about which petitioner Nacar has nothing to do. Nicanor Nacar filed a motion to dismiss. HENSON. HENSON-CRUZ. 159130 August 22. including an allegation "that defendant are about to remove and dispose the above-named property (seven carabaos) with intent to defraud plaintiff herein". 2008 ATTY. RUBY J. Ordinary action for collection is not allowed for money claims against the estate. and mandamus with preliminary injunction to annul an order of the respondent judge of the municipal court of Esperanza. to effect the return of four (4) carabaos seized under the questioned order. GUTIERREZ. LILIA J. It is also patent from the complaint that respondent Japitana filed the case against petitioner Nacar to recover seven (7) heads of carabaos allegedly belonging to Isabelo Nacar which Japitana wanted to recover from the possession of the petitioner to answer for the outstanding debt of the late Isabelo Nacar. Private respondent Japitana filed an opposition to this motion while intervenor Antonio Doloricon filed a complaint in intervention asserting that he was the owner of the attached carabaos and that the certificates of ownership of large cattle were in his name. However. prohibition. GEORGE S. 65. Agusan del Sur directing the attachment of seven (7) carabaos. RULING: Yes. and ANTONIO J. Agusan del Sur. Respondent Doloricon filed his complaint for intervention on the ground that the four carabaos. Luz J. and to stop the respondent judge from further proceeding in Civil Case No.. the respondent court in its Order denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss. Nacar to come to the Supreme Court. The preliminary mandatory injunction issued on January 13. one of the deceased's daughters and also a respondent in this petition. J. 65 and entitled it "Claim Against the Estate of the Late Isabelo Nacar With Preliminary Attachment:" On the basis of this complaint. ISSUE: WON the Petition is meritorious. Henson. 1982 NICANOR NACAR. Lilia Henson-Cruz. L-33006 December 8. Judge Nistal issued the order commanding the provincial sheriff to attach the seven (7) heads of cattle in the possession of petitioner Nicanor Nacar. vs.R. SO ORDERED. Rule 86 Case 23 G. Respondent Ildefonso Japitana filed the complaint in Civil Case No. In fact the fatal defect in the complaint was noticed by the respondent court when it advised respondent Japitana to amend his complaint to conform with his evidence and from the court's admission that it was inclined to dismiss the case were it not for the complaint in intervention of respondent Doloricon. HENSON respondents. . petitioner. Thus. Japitana had given security according to the Rules of Court. to dissolve writ of preliminary attachment. This matter. to dissolve writ of preliminary attachment and in order the return of the carabaos . and considering that Mr.: FACTS: Nicanor Nacar filed this petition for certiorari. CLAUDIO A. the trial court ruled suspending the approval of the report of the special administrator except the payment of his commission. 170498 January 9." Hence. Briones' claim for commission and that he be ordered to refund the sum of P134. 140768532. 1407668502. No. 71844. in 1998.is the lower court's last word on the matter and one that is appealable.6 SHCI alleged in its complaint that it made advance payments to AMC for the purchase of 27.277. the issue of this case is whether the appeal made by the respondents concerning the Special Administrator’s commission is valid or not. 140768533 and 140768534. and started the administration of the estate. Rule 86 of the Rules recognizes this when it provides for "Claim of Executor or Administrator Against an Estate. According to AMC. SP No. as auditors and the Order dated April 3. 2002 which appointed accounting firm Alba. respondents filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Certiorari. 2013 METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY.331.effectively.R. Chua received from SHCI 18 Metrobank checks worth P31. 140768507.000 pieces of plywood and 16. 70349) are not identical.opposed Ruby's petition. 2002.33 to the estate. Hence. These checks were all crossed. and were all made payable to AMC.807. ISSUE: In relation to estate proceedings. 2002.R. Atty. covered by Metrobank Check Nos. 140768531. These were all payable to AMC and were crossed or "for payee’s account . Section 8. the action of the court on a claim against the estate "is appealable as in ordinary cases. the present petition. AMC discovered that in 1998. On July 26. 2002. AMC’s General Manager. after Chua’s death. 2002 which reiterated the appointment. Q-00-42105 and was assigned to the RTC of Quezon City.700. Branch 80.13) From an estate proceeding perspective.191. Upon investigation.500 plyboards in the sum of P12.850. and Mandamus which was raffled to the CA's Ninth Division and docketed as CA-G. The issue of this case focused on the Special Administrator's Final Report submitted by the petitioner for the approval of the court. (SHCI) filed a complaint for sum of money against Absolute Management Corporation (AMC).R.00. FACTS: On October 5. for allegedly undelivered items worth P8.126. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No.7 Chua died in 1999.8% of the value of the estate. vs. They refuted the trial court's finding of forum shopping by declaring that the issues in their appeal and in their petition for certiorari (CA-G. The judgment of the court approving or disapproving a claim is Appealable as in ordinary actions (Sec. Sherwood Holdings Corporation. The petition assailed the Order dated March 12. Respondent. these transactions could not be found in its records.500. SHCI made demands on AMC. vouchers. ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION. Nonetheless.00." Under Section 13 of the same Rule.26 representing eight percent (8%) of the value of the estate under his administration. 8 and a special proceeding for the settlement of his estate was commenced before the RTC of Pasay City. Romeo & Co. Rule 86 Case 24 G.500. the Special Administrator's commission is no less a claim against the estate than a claim that third parties may make. They likewise asked the trial court to deny the Atty. Inc. Lilia prayed that her mother's holographic will be disallowed and that she be appointed as the Intestate Administratrix. They were given to Chua. although both stemmed from the same Order of April 3. The court ruled in favour of the respondents and granted the petition for mandamus.R. 70349. Briones as Special Administrator of the estate. They claimed that the trial court unlawfully refused to comply with its ministerial duty to approve their seasonably- perfected appeal. He prayed that he be paid a commission of P97. RULING: Yes. took his oath of office. The trial court then designated petitioner Atty. 2000. She alleged that Ruby understated the value of their late mother's estate and acted with "unconscionable bad faith" in the management thereof. 140768530. Prohibition. a claim by the special administrator against the estate . Briones accepted the appointment.00. which is hereby fixed at 1. the respondents filed a Petition for Mandamus with the appellate court. SP No. and receipts mentioned in the statement of income and disbursements. On April 29. the ruling on the extent of the Special Administrator's commission . SP No. docketed as CA-G. Petitioner. The respondents opposed the approval of the final report and prayed that they be granted an opportunity to examine the documents. George S. by the express terms of the Rules. not due. must be filed within the time limited in the notice. The RTC subsequently denied this motion. A distinctive character of Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint is its contingent nature – the claim depends on the possibility that Metrobank would be adjudged liable to AMC. arising from contract.790. falls within the claims that should be filed under Section 5. 1976. Section 5 of the Rules of Court. and judgment for money against the decedent. J. 1975and March 15. PERLAS-BERNABE.00 which was secured by a real estate mortgage6 executed over seven of their properties.: FACTS: On June 16. As a trial court hearing an ordinary action. Rule 6 of the Rules of Court.9 both of which becoming due and demandable within a period of one year. It alleged that Chua’s estate should reimburse Metrobank in case it would be held liable in the third-party complaint filed against it by AMC. Section 5 of the Rules of Court Both the RTC and the CA described Metrobank’s claim against Chua’s estate as one based on quasi-contract. barred. 99-0023 before the RTC of Pasay City. 5.) and an additional 4% penalty would be charged upon default. Rule 86 Case # 25 G. the RTC denied Metrobank’s motion.83 on October 24. INC. The RTC. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION. Metrobank filed a motion to dismiss14 against AMC on the ground that the latter engaged in prohibited forum shopping. 99-0023. the parties agreed that the said loans would earn interest at 12% per annum (p. all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent. No. If not filed. Subsequently.11 AMC averred that it had no knowledge of Chua’s transactions with SHCI and it did not receive any money from the latter. or contingent. A quasi-contract involves a juridical relation that the law creates on the basis of certain voluntary. In an order25 dated May 7. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court prevail over general provisions of Section 11. it cannot resolve matters pertaining to special proceedings because the latter is subject to specific rules. now substituted by FIRST SOVEREIGN ASSET MANAGEMENT SPV-AMC. acting in the exercise of its general jurisdiction. AMC’s claim against it is the same claim that it raised against Chua’s estate in Special Proceedings No. while the rules provided for ordinary claims.al Petitioners.10 . Respondent. not before the RTC as a fourth-party complaint. RULING: Yes. including Sec. In the meantime. Claims which must be filed under the notice. to avoid unjust enrichment. 2004. ISSUE: Whether or not quasi-contracts included in claims should be filed pursuant to Rule 86. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. Hence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. – All claims for money against the decedent.805. Rule 6 of the ROC merely apply suppletory. The settlement of the estate of deceased persons ( where claims against the deceased should be filed) is primarily governed by the rules on special proceedings. 2013 HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES FLA VIANO MAGLASANG et. This characteristic unmistakably marks the complaint as a contingent one that must be included in the claims falling under the terms of Section 5. Metrobank filed a motion for leave to admit fourth-party complaint24 against Chua’s estate. unilateral and lawful acts of a person. As such claim. They availed of their credit line by securing loans in the amounts of P209. does not have the authority to adjudicate the fourth-party complaint. The RTC categorized Metrobank’s allegation in the fourth-party complaint as a "cobro de lo indebido"27 – a kind of quasi-contract that mandates recovery of what has been improperly paid."10 In its answer with counterclaims and third-party complaint. a future event that may or may not happen. Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint. express or implied. According to Metrobank. Branch 112. respectively. Further. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. Quasi-contracts fall within the concept of implied contracts that must be included in the claims required to be filed with the judicial settlement of the deceased’s estate under Section 5.42 The Civil Code provides an enumeration of quasi-contracts.R. 11. Specific provisions of Section 5.50 and P139. vs.only. as a contingent claim. FSAMI. Rule 86 of the Rules of Court: Sec. Sps. it should have been filed in Special Proceedings No. exceptions. the present petition.000.43 but the list is not exhaustive and merely provides examples. 1975. 171206 September 23.a.Maglasang obtained a credit line from respondent5 in the amount of P350. whether the same be due. Quasi-contracts are included in claims that should be filed under Rule 86. "20 ISSUE: whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s award of the deficiency amount in favor of respondent. The complaint for the recovery of the deficiency amount after extra-judicial foreclosure filed by respondent Manila Banking Corporation is hereby DISMISSED. RULING: In our jurisdiction. Macaria. the probate court expressly recognized the rights of respondent under the mortgage and promissory notes executed by the Sps. For this purpose. RULING: Yes. Respondent. The CA allowed the deficiency as claim against the estate. appellant and Lilia mortgaged to appellee a portion. 2014 SPOUSES RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT. remained unsatisfied due to respondent’s certification that Flaviano’s account was undergoing a restructuring. In an Order19 dated December 14. Macaria died. vs. their estates) and.the probate court terminated the proceedings with the surviving heirs executing an extra-judicial partition of the properties of Flaviano’s estate. As to Extra Judicial Foreclosure. such remedy is deemed elected by the mortgage creditor upon filing of the petition not with any court of justice but with the Office of the Sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made. having unequivocally opted to exercise the third option of extra-judicial foreclosure under Section 7. WHEREFORE. as amended by Act No. The extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. On June 23. respondent sought to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage of the properties previously belonging to Sps. a remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint in an action for foreclosure of the mortgage. Maglasang. Maglasang (and now. Rule 86. the probate court issued an Order14 granting the petition. Rule 86 Case # 26 G.53 Thus. in the names of Macaria and her husband Pedro Berot (or "Pedro"). Nonetheless. SERENO. Second alternative remedy of mortgagor is “ To foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove any deficiency as an ordinary action. the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. No.R. specifically. as petitioners assert. however. since it merely notified 52 the probate court of the outstanding amount of its claim against the estate of Flaviano and that it was currently restructuring the account. The loan obligations owed by the estate to respondent. Because of the mortgagors’ default. Berot obtained a loan from Felipe C. availed of the third option. therefore. consisting of 147 square meters (or "contested property"). SIAPNO. the remedies available to the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and not cumulative.Flaviano Maglasang died intestate on February 14.000. 188944 July 9. FELIPE C. ISSUE: WON the deficiency can still be recovered. respondent is now precluded from filing a suit to recover any deficiency amount as earlier discussed. 3135. As security.1977. however. 1978 (December 14. he may obtain deficiency judgment and file it as a claim against the estate in the manner provided by this Rule . 2002. 2003. deceased. Siapno in the sum of P250. SO ORDERED. Lest it be misunderstood. In the event that a creditor fails to fully recover his claim.00. of that parcel of land with an area of 718 square meters. 1978 Order).appellee filed an action against them for foreclosure of mortgage and damages. The foreclosure suit should be against the executor or administrator as party defendant. thereby appointing Edgar as the administrator15 of Flaviano’s estate. Notably. No. stands. Petitioners. in accordance with Act. 4118 In this case. its "right to foreclose the same within the statutory period. it did not exercise the first option of directly filing a claim against the estate. CJ: FACTS: On May 23. an election of one remedy operates as a waiver of the other. Rule 86 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. Considering that she had validly mortgaged the property to secure a loan obligation. Thus. During her lifetime. WHEREFORE. . and given our ruling in this case that the obligation is joint. 2004-0246-D is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the obligation of petitioners and the estate of Macaria Berot is declared as joint in nature. 87995 sustaining the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. Macaria was the registered owner of the mortgaged property. a mortgagee has the legal option to institute a foreclosure suit and to recover upon the security. which is the mortgaged property. her intestate estate is liable to a third of the loan contracted during her lifetime.32 Under the said provision for claims against an estate. but would be answerable only to the extent of the liability of Macaria to respondent. the foreclosure of the property may proceed. CV No. SO ORDERED. the CA Decision in CA-G.R.The CA properly upheld respondent's course of action as an availment of the second remedy provided under Section 7. subject of the assailed foreclosure.