SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS DEFINITION:
“A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact.” (Section (c), Rule 1)
The term “special proceeding” may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are required unless the statute expressly so provides and the remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion.” (Natcher vs. CA, G.R. No. 133000, October 2, 2001)
A special proceeding, “by which a party seeks to establish a status, right, or a particular fact,” has one definite party, who petitions or applies for a declaration of a status, right, or particular fact, but no definite adverse party. (Montañer vc CA, G.R. No. 174975, January 20, 2009)
Are the enumerations under Sec. 1, Rule 72 exclusive?
The list under Section 1, Rule 72 is not exclusive. Any petition which has for its main purpose the establishment of a status, right or a particular fact may be included as special proceeding. (Festin, Special
Proceedings, A Foresight to the Bar Exam: Question and Answer Noted, Bar Questions, Cases and Updated Laws, 2011)
What are some of the cases which are considered special proceeding? 1. Declaration of Nullity of Marriage;
2. Annulment of Marriage 3. Insolvency proceedings
4. Proceeding for the issuance of writ of amparo 5. Proceedings for the issuance of writ of habeas data 6. Alternative Dispute Resolution proceedings; 7. Presumptive death
Can a special proceeding be joined with ordinary civil actions?
No, by express provision of Sec. 5, Rule 2 which requires that the joinder of causes of action must not involve special civil actions or actions governed by special rules, (which includes special proceedings)
Specific rules on settlement prevail over general rules
We read with approval the CA’s use of statutory construction principle of lex specialis derogate
generali, leading to the conclusion that the specific provisions of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court
should prevail over the general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court; 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, while the rules provided for ordinary claims, including Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, merely apply suppletorily. (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Absolute Management
Corporation, G.R. No. 170498. January 9, 2013)
4.1. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS, VENUE AND PROCESS
A special proceeding for the settlement of an estate is filed and intended to settle the entire estate of the deceased is obvious and elementary ( Vda. De Reyes vs. CA, G.R. No. L-47027 January 27, 1989).
Probate of the will takes precedence over intestate proceedings: Effect if probate of the will is disapproved:
If in the course of intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance it is found it that the decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to render final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed but this is without prejudice to the fact that should the alleged last will be rejected or is disapproved, the proceeding shall continue as intestacy. (Uriarte vs CFI Of Negros, G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970)
Insolvency proceedings and settlement are actions in rem:
Insolvency proceedings end settlement of a decedent’s estate is both proceedings in rem which are binding the whole world. Consequently, a liquidation of similar import or other equivalent general liquidation must also necessarily be a proceeding in rem so that all interested persons whether known to the parties or not may be bound by such proceeding. (Philippine Savings Bank vs Lantin, G.R. No. L-33929. September 2,
1983.)
4.1. 1. JURISDICTION OVER SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE.
The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person (probate proceedings) where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000 and in Metro Manila where the gross value of the estate exceeds P400,000. Where the gross value does not exceed P300,000 or P400,000 it would be the Municipal Trial Court which would have jurisdiction. (BP 129 and RA 7691)
4.1. 2 VENUE IN JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
The matter of venue, or the particular Court of First Instance where the special proceeding should be commenced, is regulated by former Rule 75, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, now Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides that the estate of a decedent inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, shall be in the court of first instance in the province in which he resided at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the court of first instance of any province in which he had estate. (Uriarte vs CFI Of Negros, G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970)
Place of residence of the deceased is for the determination of venue:
The place of residence of the deceased is not an element of jurisdiction over the subject-matter but merely of venue. And it is upon this ground that in the new Rules of Court the province where the estate of a deceased person shall be settled is properly called "venue". (Cuenco vs CA, G.R. No. L-24742 October 26,
1973)
The place of residence of the deceased in settlement of estates, probate of will, and issuance of letters of administration does not constitute an element of jurisdiction over the subject matter. As it is merely constitutive of venue (Fule vs. CA, L-40502, November 29, 1976).
Venue in settlement of the estate waivable:
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that wrong venue is merely a waiveable procedural defect. Moreover, it must be remembered that this Court is not inclined to annul proceedings regularly had in a lower court even if the latter was not the proper venue therefor, if the net result would be to have the same proceedings repeated in some other court of similar jurisdiction; more so in a case like the present where the objection against said proceedings is raised too late. (Uriarte vs CA, G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970)
Exclusionary rule on venue in settlement of the estate:
Even assuming that there is concurrent venue among the Regional Trial Courts of the places where the decedent has residences, the Regional Trial Court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of the decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts (Section 1, Rule 73). (Vda. De Chua
vs CA. G.R. No. 116835 March 5, 1998)
4.1. 3. EXTENT OF JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURT
Coverage on the extent of the power of the probate court: Issue of ownership not included:
The probate jurisdiction of the former court of first instance or the present regional trial court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of wills of deceased persons, and the appointment and removal of administrators, executors, guardians and trustees and does not extend the jurisdiction of a probate court to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceeding. The parties concerned may choose to bring a separate action as a matter of convenience in the preparation or presentation of evidence. (Ramos vs CA, G.R. No. 42108 December 29, 1989)
Jurisdiction of probate court to determine whether property belongs to conjugal partnership or exclusive ownership of a party
In the case now before us, the matter in controversy is the question of ownership of certain of the properties involved — whether they belong to the conjugal partnership or to the husband exclusively. This is a matter properly within the jurisdiction of the probate court which necessarily has to liquidate the conjugal partnership in order to determine the estate of the decedent which is to be distributed among his heirs who are all parties to the proceedings. (Leo C. Romero and David Amando C. Romero vs. Hon. Court of Appeals,
Aurora C. Romero and Vittorio C. Romero, G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012) Probate court has a special and limited jurisdiction:
It must be emphasized that the trial court, sitting, as a probate court, has limited and special jurisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which may be properly threshed out only in an ordinary civil action. (Vda. De Manalo vs. CA, G.R. No. 129242. January 16, 2001)
The authority of the Regional Trial Court, sitting, albeit with limited jurisdiction, as a probate court over the estate of deceased individual, is not a trifling thing. The court's jurisdiction, once invoked, and made effective, cannot be treated with indifference nor should it be ignored with impunity by the very parties invoking its authority. (Romero vs CA, G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012)
Issues that may be resolved by the probate court:
In testament to this, it has been held that it is within the jurisdiction of the probate court to (1) approve the sale of properties of a deceased person by his prospective heirs before final adjudication; (2) to determine who are the heirs of the decedent; (3) the recognition of a natural child; (4) the status of a woman claiming to be the legal wife of the decedent; the legality of disinheritance of an heir by the testator; and (5)to pass upon the validity of a waiver of hereditary rights. (Romero vs CA, G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012) Determination of heir an issue resolvable by probate court
While the foregoing allegations, if admitted to be true, would consequently warrant the reliefs sought for in the said complaint, the rule that the determination of a decedent’s lawful heirs should be made in the corresponding special proceeding precludes the RTC, in an ordinary action for cancellation of title and reconveyance, from granting the same. In the case of Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. CA, the Court, citing several other precedents, held that the determination of who are the decedent’s lawful heirs must be made in the
proper special proceeding for such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and/or possession, as in this case:
“Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must take precedence over the action for recovery of possession and ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right.” (Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte
a.k.a. “Gaudioso E. Ypon,” and The Register of Deeds of Toledo City., G.R. No. 198680, July 8, 2013)
Nature of the determination of issue of ownership in probate not conclusive merely provisional: The probate court may pass upon the title thereto but such determination is not conclusive and is subject to the final decision in a separate action regarding ownership which may be instituted by the parties.
(Reyes vs Mosqueda, G.R. No. L-45262 July 23, 1990)
The jurisprudence and rule are both to the effect that the probate court "may" provisionally pass upon the question of exclusion, not "should". The obvious reason is the probate court's limited jurisdiction and the principle that questions of title or ownership, which result to inclusion in or exclusion from the inventory of the property, can only be settled in a separate action. (Pio Baretto vs. Aa, G.R. No. L-62431-33
August 31, 1984)
It cannot but be conceded that the limited jurisdiction of a probate court prohibits it from determining rights to property left by a decedent which depends on the contract (Goodin v. Casselman 200
N.W. 94, 51 N.D. 543).
However, actions of the probate court, in the case at bar, do not refer to the adjudication of rights under the contract entered into by the deceased during his lifetime. It is to be noted that the dealings of the respondent with the court arose out of the latter's bid to sell property under its authority to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber property of the estate to pay or settle against the estate (Rule 89, Revised Rules of
Court).
"[A] probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator. "( De
Leon vs. CA, G.R. No. 128781, August 6, 2002)
Although generally, a probate court may not decide a question of title or ownership, yet if the interested parties are all heirs, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is competent to decide the question of ownership. (Romero vs CA, G.R. No. 188921, April 18,
4.1.4. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PROBATE COURT In probate proceedings, the court:
a) Orders the probate of the will of the decedent (Sec. 3, Rule 77);
b) Grants letters of administration of the party best entitled thereto or to any qualified applicant (Sec.
5, Rule 79);
c) Supervises and control all acts of administration;
d) Hears and approves claims against the estate of the deceased (Sec. 11, Rule 86); e) Orders payment of lawful debts (Sec. 11, Rule 88);
f) Authorizes sale, mortgage or any encumbrance of real estate (Sec. 2, Rule 89); g) Directs the delivery of the estate to those entitled thereto (Sec. 1, Rule 90);
h) Issue warrants and processes necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses or to carry into effect their orders and judgments, and all other powers granted them by law (Sec. 3, Rule 73);
i) If a person defies a probate order, it may issue a warrant for the apprehension and imprisonment of such person until he performs such order or judgment, or is released (Sec. 3, Rule 73).
Power of supervision and control of the probate court:
"The court which acquires jurisdiction over the properties of a deceased person through the filing of the corresponding proceedings, has supervision and control over the said properties, and under the said power, it is its inherent duty to see that the inventory submitted by the administrator appointed by it contains all the properties, rights and credits which the law requires the administrator to set out in his inventory. In compliance with this duty the court has also inherent power to determine what properties, rights and credits of the deceased should be included in or excluded from the inventory. (De Leon vs CA, G.R.
No. 128781, August 6, 2002)
The court acts as trustee and as such, should jealously guard the estate and see to it that it is wisely and economically administered, not dissipated (Timbol vs. Cano, 111 Phil. 923, G.R. No. L-15445, April 29,
1961).
Should an heir or person interested in the properties of a deceased person duly call the court’s attention to the fact that certain properties, rights or credits have been left out in the inventory, it is likewise the court’s duty to hear the observations, with power to determine if such observations should be attended to or not and if the properties referred to therein belong prima facie to the intestate, but no such determination is final and ultimate in nature as to the ownership of the said properties. (De Leon vs CA, G.R. No. 128781,
August 6, 2002)
4.2. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES General rule:
When a person dies leaving property, the same should be JUDICIALLY ADMINISTERED and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order established in Section 6, Rule 78, in case the deceased left no will, or in case he had left one, should he fail to name an executor therein. (Pereira vs CA,
G.R. No. L-81147 June 20, 1989)
Exceptions:
1. Extrajudicial settlement (Section 1, Rule 74)
2. Summary settlement of estates of small value (Section 2, Rule 74)
As a general rule, when a person dies living property in the Philippine Islands, his property should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, or in case the deceased left no will, or in case he had left one should he fail to name an executor therein. This rule, however, is subject to the exceptions, such as when the heirs are all of lawful age and there are no debts there is no reason why the estate should be burdened with the cost and expenses of an administrator. (Pereira vs CA,
G.R. No. L-81147 June 20, 1989 citing Utulo vs. Pasion vda. De Garcia, 66 Phil. 303, G.R. No. 45904, September 30, 1938)
This court repeatedly held that when a person dies without leaving pending obligations to be paid, his heirs, whether of age or not, are not bound to submit the property to a judicial administration and the appointment of an administrator are superfluous and unnecessary proceedings (Fule vs CA, G.R. No. L-40502
November 29, 1976)
If the intention were otherwise the framer of the rule would have employed the word shall as was done in other provisions that are mandatory in character. Note that the word may is used not only once but in the whole section which indicates an intention to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the heirs.
(Arcilla vs Montejo,G.R. No. L-21725, November 29, 1968)
It should be noted that recourse to an administration proceeding even if the estate has no debts is sanctioned only if the heirs have good reasons for not resorting to an action for partition. Where partition is possible, either in or out of court, the estate should not be burdened with an administration proceeding without good and compelling reasons. (Pereira vs CA, G.R. No. L-81147 June 20, 1989)
Effect of Exclusion of Heirs-Agreement null and void
Hence, in the execution of the Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale in favor of spouses Uy, all the heirs of Anunciacion should have participated. Considering that Eutropia and Victoria were admittedly excluded and that then minors Rosa and Douglas were not properly represented therein, the settlement was not valid and binding upon them and consequently, a total nullity.
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. – x x x no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. x x x (emphasis supplied). (Neri, at al. vs. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy and Julpha Ibrahim Uy., G.R. No.
194366, October 10, 2012)
4.2.2. TWO-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
Extrajudicial settlement is an ex-parte proceeding:
The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 of extrajudicial settlement, or by affidavit, is an ex
parte proceeding. It cannot by any reason or logic be contended that such settlement or distribution would
affect third persons who had no knowledge either of the death of the decedent or of the extrajudicial settlement or affidavit, especially as no mention of such effect is made, either directly or by implication.
(Sampilo vs CA, G.R. No. L-10474, February 28, 1958)
Two (2) year prescriptive period applies only persons who knew or participated in the extrajudicial settlement:
The provisions of Section 4 of Rule 74, barring distributees or heirs from objecting to an extrajudicial partition after the expiration of two years from such extrajudicial partition, is applicable only to persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition, and, in addition, when the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 74 have been strictly complied with. There is nothing therein, or in its source
which shows clearly a statute of limitations and a bar of action against third persons. (Sampilo vs CA, G.R. No.
L-10474, February 28, 1958)
4.2.3. AFFIDAVIT OF SELF-ADJUDICATION BY SOLE HEIR
If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed under Section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent. (Sec.1, Rule
74)
4.2.4. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES OF SMALL VALUE, WHEN ALLOWED Factors to consider in the summary settlement of the estate of small value:
a) WE uniformly held that for the court to acquire jurisdiction in a petition for summary settlement of estate under the rules, the requirement that the amount of the estate involved should not exceed P10,000,00 (P6,000.00 under the old rules) is jurisdictional. (Del Rosario v. Cunanan, L-37903, March 30,
1977);
b) Decedent died testate or intestate; c) Petition filed by an interested person;
d) Notice published at least once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation;
e) Hearing of petition held not less than 1 month nor more than 3 months from the date of the LAST publication of notice;
f) Payment of such debts of the estate as the court shall find to be due;
g) The order of partition or award, if it involves real estate, recorded in the register of deeds; and h) Bond filed with the register of deeds in an amount to be fixed by the court.
Bond not required in case when only real property is involved:
No bond is necessary when only real estate is involved because the lien as recorded is sufficient security for any claim which may be filed under Sec 4, that is, when an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate.
4.2.5. REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES AFTER EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE Binding effects of extra-judicial settlement:
An extrajudicial settlement despite the publication shall not be binding on any person who has not participated therein or who had no notice of death of the decedent. this is because the procedure in section 1, rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding (Sampilo vs CA, G.R. No. L-10474, February 28, 1958)
A SUMMARY SETTLEMENT is likewise NOT BINDING upon heirs or creditors who were not parties therein or had no knowledge thereof.
REMEDIES OF AN EXCLUDED CREDITOR:
a) The unpaid creditor MAY PROCEED against the bond by filing, WITHIN 2 YEARS, a motion for the payment of his credit in the court wherein such summary settlement was had.
b) AFTER the lapse of the 2 year period, the creditor may NO LONGER proceed against the bond, BUT can institute an ordinary action against the distributees within the statute of limitations.
2. Petition for Letters of Administration
3. Action to annul a deed of extrajudicial settlement on the ground of fraud should be filed within four years from the discovery of fraud. (Regalado, 2008)
4. Proceed Against the Real Property a) The lien subsists for 2 years.
b) The 2-year lien upon the real property distributed by extrajudicial or summary settlement shall be annotated on the title issued to the distributees and after 2 years will be cancelled by the register of deeds without need of court order (LRC Circular 143)
5) Ordinary Civil Action REMEDIES OF AN EXCLUDED HEIR:
1) Action to compel settlement of estate(Section 4, Rule 74)
2) Action for rescission on the ground of lesion (Art. 1381, par. 1, NCC) Prescriptive period is 4 years 3) Accion Reivindicatoria
4)10 years, Implied Trust. Annulment on the ground of fraud When does the prescriptive period of four (4) years begin to run?
Prescriptive period is 4 years. The period of four (4) years therein prescribed did not begin to run until actual discovery of the fraud perpetrated by respondents, which, it is claimed, took place in 1956 or 1957; and that accordingly, said period had not expired when the present action was commenced on November 4, 1958. (Gerona vs. De Guzman, Gr L-19060, 1964)
PERIOD FOR CLAIM OF MINOR OR INCAPACITATED PERSON
If on the date of the expiration of the period of two (2) years prescribed in the preceding section the person authorized to file a claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated, or is in prison or outside the Philippines, he may present his claim within one (1) year after such disability is removed. (Section 5, Rule 75) 4.3. PRODUCTION AND PROBATE OF WILL
What is probate of the will?
A judicial act whereby an instrument is adjudged valid and is ordered to be recorded. It is the statutory method of establishing the proper execution of the instrument and giving notice of its contents. The probate of a will by the court having jurisdiction thereof is considered as conclusive as to its due execution and testamentary capacity of the testator (Mercado vs. Santos, No. 45629, 22 September 1938). 4.3.1. NATURE OF PROBATE PROCEEDING:
The probate of the will is mandatory (Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479 and 98 Phil. 249; Baluyot
Consolidation of the intestate proceedings with testate proceedings:
It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases. (Roberts vs. Leonidas, G.R. No.
L-55509 April 27, 1984)
Reason why the will should be probated:
The law enjoins the probate of the Will and public policy requires it, because unless the Will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by Will may be rendered nugatory. (Maninang vs. CA, G.R. No. L-57848 June 19, 1982)
Exceptions:
a) The heirs divide the estate according to the will; pay the creditors accordingly so that none of them may be prejudiced. By permitting partition and division of estate without judicial proceedings would enable the heirs to take over their respective shares in the inheritance without delay and thereby avoid expenses and waste (McMicking v. Sy Combieng, 21 Phil. 219)
b) No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved or allowed in court. We find, that the document may be sustained on the basis of Article 1056 which reads as follows: Art. 1056. If the
testator should make a partition of his properties by an act inter vivos, or by win, such partition shall stand in so far as it does not prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs . (Mang-Oy vs CA, G.R. No. L-27421 September 12, 1986)
Issues that may be resolved in probate proceedings:
As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited only to passing upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated, the due execution thereof, the testator's testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribes by law. The question of the intrinsic validity of a will normally comes only after the court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. (Nufable vs
Nufable, G.R. No. 126950 July 2, 1999)
In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. (Rules of Court, Rule 75, Section 1; Rule 76, Section 9.)
Probate court cannot pass upon issue of ownership: Exceptions:
As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the Probate Court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties, the Probate Court may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title. (Pastor Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. L-56340 June 24, 1983)
EXCEPTION WHEN PROBATE COURT MAY PASS UPON INTRINSIC VALIDITY: 1) Null and void will:
In Nuguid v. Nuguid (17 SCRA 449) cited by the trial court, the testator instituted the petitioner as universal heir and completely preterited her surviving forced heirs. A will of this nature, no matter how valid it may appear extrinsically, would be null and void and separate or latter proceedings to determine the
intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions would be superfluous. (Nepomuceno vs CA, G.R. No. L-62952
October 9, 1985)
2) Grave abuse of discretion by the probate court: Remedy of certiorari available:
An act done by a Probate Court in excess of its jurisdiction may be corrected by Certiorari. And even assuming the existence of the remedy of appeal, we harken to the rule that in the broader interests of justice, a petition for certiorari may be entertained, particularly where appeal would not afford speedy and adequate relief. (Maninang vs CA, G.R. No. L-57848 June 19, 1982)
Doctrine of estoppels not applicable in probate proceedings:
Doctrine of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings as the presentation and probate of a will are requirements of public policy, being primarily designed to protect the testator's, expressed wishes, which are entitled to respect as a consequence of the decedent's ownership and right of disposition within legal limits. It would be a non sequitur to allow public policy to be evaded on the pretext of estoppel.
(Fernandez, Et Al. vs. Dimagiba, L-23638, October 12, 1967)
4.3.2. WHO MAY PETITION FOR PROBATE; PERSONS ENTITLED TO NOTICE The following may petition for the allowance of a will:
a) Testator himself during his lifetime b) Heir (person interested in the estate) c) Executor
d) Creditor
e) Devisee or legatee
Person who will intervene in probate proceedings must have an interest:
It is a well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding he must have an interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it either as executor or as a claimant of the estate (Ngo The Hua vs. Chung Kiat Hua, Et Al., L-17091, September 30,
1963);
Who is an interested party?
An INTERESTED PARTY is one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim against the estate such as a creditor. (Sumilang vs. Ramagosa, 21 SCRA 1398, G.R. No.
L-23135 December 26, 1967)
4.4. ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL
4.4. 1. Contents of petition for allowance of will
a) Rule 76, section 2 requires that the petition for allowance of a will must show: "(a) the jurisdictional facts." Such "jurisdictional facts" in probate proceedings, as held by the Court in Fernando vs.
Crisostomo " are the death of the decedent, his residence at the time of his death in the province where the
probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, his having left his estate in such province." (Cuenco vs CA, G.R. No. L-24742 October 26, 1973)
b) Names, ages and residences of heirs, legatees, and devisees; c) Probable value and character of the property of the estate;
d) Name of person for whom letters are prayed;
e) Name of person having custody of will, if it has not yet been delivered to the court. (In The Matter
Of The Petition To Approve The Will Of Ruperta Palaganas vs. Ernesto Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011)
4.4. 2. GROUNDS FOR DISALLOWING A WILL:
What are the grounds for the disallowance of a will? Nature? Issues to be resolved in the probate of a holographic will:
a) The will was not executed and attested as required by law;
b) The testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will at the time of its execution; c) The will was executed through force or under duress or the influence of fear, or threats;
d) The will was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person for his benefit;
e) The signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick;
f) The testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto. (Section 9, Rule 76 of Rules of court and Art 839, New Civil Code)
These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to disallow a will. Thus, in a petition to admit a holographic will to probate, the only issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last will and testament; (2) whether said will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law; (3) whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed; and, (4) whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts of the decedent. (Ajero vs. CA, G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994)
4.4. 3. REPROBATE OF THE WILL:
Duty of the court in reprobate of the will:
Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of Court. In reprobate, the local court acknowledges as binding the findings of the foreign probate court provided its jurisdiction over the matter can be established. (In The Matter Of The Petition To Approve The Will Of Ruperta Palaganas vs. Ernesto
Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011)
a) Requisites before a will proved abroad will be allowed in the Philippines Article 816 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides thus:
Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes. (Art. 816 of the Civil Code)
Matters to be proved in reprobate of the will:
The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have been probated outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted to probate in such country; (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills . (De Perez vs. Tolete, G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994)
Duty of proving foreign laws in reprobate of the will: Reason:
The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the probate in the foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice of them (Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Escolin, 56 Scra 266 G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896 March 29, 1974). Duty of the court in case a will is presented for reprobate:
The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall "cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance" (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 27, Section 2) means that with regard to notices, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will" or a will that is presented for probate for the first time. (De Perez vs. Tolete, G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994) Where to make the administration of property?
When a person dies intestate owning property in the country of his domicile as well as in a foreign country, administration is had in both countries. (B.E. Johannes vs. Harvey,G.R. No. 18600, March 9, 1922) Principal/domiciliary administration vs. Ancillary administration:
That which is granted in the jurisdiction of decedent's last domicile is termed the principal/ domiciliary administration, while any other administration is termed the ancillary administration. The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies, leaving in a country other than that of his last domicile, property to be administered in the nature of assets of the deceased liable for his individual debts or to be distributed among his heirs." (Testate Estate of Idonah Perkins vs Benguet Consolidated, G.R. No.
L-23145, November 29, 1968) 4.4.4. EFFECTS OF PROBATE:
a) The will shall be treated as if originally proved and allowed in Philippine courts; (De Perez vs.
Tolete, G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994)
b) Letters testamentary or administration with a will annexed shall extend to all estates of the Philippines;
c) After payment of just debts and expenses of administration, the residue of the estate shall be disposed of as provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country (Section 4, Rule 77).
4.5. LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION
4.5. 1. WHEN AND TO WHOM LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION GRANTED The following may administer the estate of a deceased:
1. Executor 2. Administrator
WHO ARE INCOMPETENT TO SERVE AS EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS No person is competent to serve as executor or administrator who: (a) Is a minor;
(c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of the trust by reason of i.)drunkenness,
ii.) improvidence, or
Iii.)want of understanding or integrity, or
iv.) by reason of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude. (Section 1, Rule 78) v.) Antagonistic Interest. "(I)n this jurisdiction, one is considered to be unsuitable for appointment as administrator when he has adverse interest of some kind of hostility to those immediately interested in the estate.". (Medina vs. CA, G.R. No. L-34760, September 28, 1973)
Determination of executor or administrator discretionary upon the court:
The Rules of Court gives the lower court the duty and discretion to determine whether in its opinion an individual is unfit to serve as an executor. The sufficiency of any ground for removal should thus be determined by the said court, whose sensibilities are, in the first place, affected by any act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules of orders of the court. (Matute vs.
Court Of Appeals, No. L- 26751, January 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 768, 784) Choice of executor prerogative of the testator:
The choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a testator, a necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the manner he wishes. The curtailment of this right may be considered as a curtailment of the right to dispose and as the rights granted by will take effect from the time of death, the management of his estate by the administrator of his choice should be made as soon as practicable, when no reasonable objection to his assumption of the trust can be interposed any longer. (RP
vs. Marcos Ii, G.R. Nos. 130371 &130855, August 4, 2009)
4.5. 2. ORDER OF PREFERENCE
Order of preference in the appointment of a regular administrator:
Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court lists the order of preference in the appointment of an administrator of an estate:
SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. – If no executor is named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request that administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other person as the court may select.
However, the order of preference is not absolute for it depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of each case and it has been long held that the selection of an administrator lies in the sound
discretion of the trial court. (In The Matter Of The Intestate Estate Of Cristina Aguinaldo- Suntay; Emilio
A.M. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 183053, June 16, 2010) Factor to consider in the appointment of administrator:
The paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator over the estate of a decedent is the prospective administrator’s interest in the estate. This is the same consideration which Section 6, Rule 78 takes into account in establishing the order of preference in the appointment of administrator for the estate. The rationale behind the rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical administration of the estate, or, in the alternative, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate correctly. In all, given that the rule speaks of an order of preference, the person to be appointed administrator of a decedent’s estate must demonstrate not only an interest in the estate, but an interest therein greater than any other candidate. (Emilio A.M. Suntay III vs. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay., G.R. No. 183053, October 10, 2012)
In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed as administrator. The underlying assumption behind this rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy, economical administration of the estate, or, on the other hand, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate correctly.(Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 74769 September 28, 1990)
When can the court appoint an administrator if the executor is disqualified, refused to assume the trust, etc.?
The rule is that if no executor is named in the will, or the named executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, the court must appoint an administrator of the estate of the deceased who shall act as representative not only of the court appointing him but also of the heirs and the creditors of the estate. In the exercise of its discretion, the probate court may
appoint one, two or more co-administrators to have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented. (Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 74769 September 28, 1990)
Appointment of co-administrators:
Where the estate is large, to appoint two or more administrators of such estate to have different interests represented and satisfied, and furthermore, to have such representatives work in harmony for the best interests of such estate. (Matute vs. CA, G.R. No. 26751, January 31, 1969)
Appointment of co-administrator is allowed but as an exception
It is to this requirement of observation of the order of preference in the appointment of administrator of a decedent’s estate, that the appointment of co-administrators has been allowed, but as an exception. We again refer to Section 6(a) of Rule 78 of the Rules of Court which specifically states that letters of administration may be issued to both the surviving spouse and the next of kin. In addition and impliedly, we can refer to Section 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court which say that “x x x [w]hen an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed, the remaining executor or administrator may administer the trust alone, x x x.”
In a number of cases, we have sanctioned the appointment of more than one administrator for the benefit of the estate and those interested therein. We recognized that the appointment of administrator of the estate of a decedent or the determination of a person’s suitability for the office of judicial administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment.
Under certain circumstances and for various reasons well-settled in Philippine and American jurisprudence, we have upheld the appointment of co-administrators: (1) to have the benefits of their
judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented; (2) where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate and perplexing one to settle;(4) to have all interested persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for the best interests of the estate; and when a person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have another competent person associated with him in the office. (Emilio A.M. Suntay III vs. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay., G.R. No. 183053, October 10, 2012)
4.5. 3. OPPOSITION TO ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY; SIMULTANEOUS FILING OF PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATION
Who may oppose the petition for issuance of letter administration?
Only an interested person may oppose the petition for issuance of letters of administration. An interested person is one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor; his interest is material and direct, and not one that is only indirect or contingent. (Vda. De Chua vs. CA. G.R. No. 116835 March 5, 1998)
Who is an interested party?
An interested party has been defined in this connection as one who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor (Intestate Estate of Julio
Magbanwa 40 Off. Gaz. 1171). Nature of the interest?
The interest required in order that a person may be a party thereto must be material and direct, and not merely indirect or contingent. In the case at bar, Petitioner’s interest in the estate of the deceased Maria V. Lindayag was disputed, through a motion to dismiss her petition, by the surviving spouse on the ground that said deceased was survived by him and by three legally adopted children — thus excluding petitioner who was the deceased’s sister, as an heir. (Saguinsin vs. Lindayag, G.R. No. L-17759. December
17, 1962 )
Lack of interest is a ground for the dismissal of the action on the ground of lack legal capacity to sue: Of course, since the opening sentence of the section requires that the petition must be filed by an interested person, it goes without saying that a motion to dismiss may lie not on the basis of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court, but rather on the ground of lack of legal capacity to institute the proceedings. (Pilipinas Shell vs. Dumlao, G.R. No. 44888. February 7, 1992)
4.5. 4. POWERS AND DUTIES OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS:
1) To have access to, and examine and take copies of books and papers relating to the partnership in case of a deceased partner;
2) To examine and make invoices of the property belonging to the partnership in case of a deceased partner;
3) To make improvements on the properties under administration with the necessary court approval except for necessary repairs;
4) To possess and manage the estate when necessary: a) payment of debts; and
5) To maintain in tenantable repairs houses and other structures and fences and to deliver the same in such repair to the heirs or devisees when directed so to do by the court.
Duty to account by the executor or administrator mandatory:
The duty of an executor or administrator to render an account is not a mere incident of an administration proceeding which can be waived or disregarded as it is a duty that has to be performed and duly acted upon by the court before the administration is finally ordered closed and terminated, to the end that no part of the decedent's estate be left unaccounted for. The fact that the final accounts had been approved does not divest the court of jurisdiction to require supplemental accounting. (Vda. De Chua vs. CA.
G.R. No. 116835 March 5, 1998)
Purpose of the bond by the administrator:
Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 81, the bond secures the performance of the duties and obligations of an administrator namely:
(1) to administer the estate and pay the debts; (2) to perform all judicial orders;
(3) to account within one (1) year and at any other time when required by the probate court; and (4) to make an inventory within three (3) months.
More specifically, per Section 4 of the same Rule, the bond is conditioned on the faithful execution of the administration of the decedent’s estate requiring the special administrator to:
(1) make and return a true inventory of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased which come to his possession or knowledge;
(2) truly account for such as received by him when required by the court; and
(3) deliver the same to the person appointed as executor or regular administrator, or to such other person as may be authorized to receive them.
Verily, the administration bond is for the benefit of the creditors and the heirs, as it compels the administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the trust reposed in, and discharge the obligations incumbent upon, him, therefore, it should not be considered as part of the necessary expenses chargeable against the estate, not being included among the acts constituting the care, management, and settlement of the estate. (Ocampo vs. Ocampo, G.R. No. 187879, July 5, 2010)
4.5. 5. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR:
Order of preference in the appointment of regular administrator may be considered in the appointment of a special administrator:
Nothing is wrong for the judge to consider the order of preference in the appointment of a regular administrator in appointing a special administrator. After all, the consideration that overrides all others in this respect is the beneficial interest of the appointee in the estate of the decedent (Fule vs. CA, G.R. No.
L-40502 November 29, 1976)
Principal object of the appointment of a special administrator:
The principal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass to the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. (Ocampo vs. Ocampo, G.R. No. 187879, July 5, 2010) Nature of the duty of the special administrators:
The Special Administrators that while they may have respective interests to protect, they are officers of the Court subject to the supervision and control of the Probate Court and are expected to work for the best interests of the entire estate, its smooth administration, and its earliest settlement. (Corona vs. CA, G.R. No.
L-59821 August 30, 1982)
When can a special administrator be appointed?
The specific and limited powers of special administrators and that their appointment merely temporary and subsists only until a regular administrator is duly appointed (since Rule 80, section 1 provides for the appointment of a special administrator as a caretaker only "when there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by any cause") (Medina vs. Beda Gonzales, G.R. No. L-34760 September 28, 1973)
Appointment of a special administrator discretionary:
The discretion to appoint a special administrator or not lies in the probate court but that is no authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment but such discretion must be based on reason, equity, justice and legal principle. There is no reason why the same fundamental and legal principles governing the choice of a regular administrator should not be taken into account in the appointment of a special administrator. (Fule vs. CA,
G.R. No. L-40502 November 29, 1976)
Choice of the executrix of special administrator deserves highest consideration:
The executrix's choice of Special Administrator, considering her own inability to serve and the wide latitude of discretion given her by the testatrix in her Will (Annex "A-1"), is entitled to the highest consideration.. (Corona vs CA, G.R. No. L-59821 August 30, 1982)
4.5. 6. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF ADMINISTRATOR:
1.) neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law, or 2) neglects to perform an order or judgment of the court, or
3.) neglect to perfom a duty expressly provided by these rules, or
4.) absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust, the court may remove him, or, in its discretion, may permit him to resign. (Section 2, Rule 82)
Other grounds for the removal of the administrator discretionary upon the court:
The probate court may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, such that the need to first pass upon and resolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the application of the order of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78, as would be proper in the case of a regular administrator,do not obtain. (Ocampo vs. Ocampo, G.R. No. 187879, July 5,
2010)
Nature of the powers of administrator:
Administrators have such an interest in the execution of their trust as to entitle them to protection from removal without just cause. Hence, Section 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court provides the legal and specific causes authorizing the court to remove an administrator. (Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 74769
September 28, 1990)
Trial court’s action of removing administrator deserves respect by the appellate court except when there is an error or grave abuse of discretion:
The sufficiency of any ground for removal should thus be determined by said court, whose sensibilities are, in first place, affected by any act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court. Consequently, appellate tribunals are disinclined to interfere with the action taken by a probate court in the matter of the removal of an executor or administrator unless positive error or gross abuse of discretion is shown. (Matute vs. CA, No. L- 26751, January
31, 1969, 26 Scra 768, 784)
Grounds for removal of administrator must be proved by evidence:
While it is conceded that the court is invested with ample discretion in the removal of an administrator, it however must have some fact legally before it in order to justify a removal. There must be evidence of an act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court, which it deems sufficient or substantial to warrant the removal of the administrator. (Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 74769 September 28, 1990)
Effects of revocation of letters testamentary or administration:
It is elementary that the effect of revocation of letters testamentary or of administration is to terminate the authority of the executor or administrator, but the acts of the executor or administrator, done in good faith prior to the revocation of the letters, will be protected, and a similar protection will be extended to rights acquired under a previous grant of administration. (Vda. De Bacaling vs. Laguna, G.R. No. L-26694
December 18, 1973)
Order of appointment of special administrator an interlocutory order subject to certiorari:
The appointment or removal of special administrators, being discretionary, is thus interlocutory and may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (Ocampo vs. Ocampo,
G.R. No. 187879, July 5, 2010) 4.6. CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE
Upon the death of a person, all his property is burdened with all his debts, his death creating and equitable lien thereon for the benefit of the creditors. Such lien continues until all debts are extinguished either by the payment, prescription, or satisfaction in one of the modes recognized by law. (Sui Liong vs.
Taysan, G.R. No. L-4777, November 11, 1908 )
4.6.1. TIME WITHIN WHICH CLAIMS SHALL BE FILED; EXCEPTIONS Statute of non-claims:
Section 2, Rule 86, which provides:
Sec. 2. Time within which claims shall be filed. — In the notice provided in the preceding section, the court shall state the time for the filing of claims against the estate, which shall not be more than twelve (12) nor less than six (6) months after the date of the first publication of the notice. However, at anytime before an order of distribution is entered, on application of a creditor who has failed to file his claim within the time previously limited, the court may, for cause shown and on such terms as are equitable, allow such claim to be filed within a time not exceeding one (1) months.
Purpose of the fixing of the period of claims:
The purpose of the law, in fixing a period within which claims against an estate must be presented, 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. (Heirs of Pizarro vs. Consolacion, G.R. No. L-51278 May 9, 1988)
Purpose of the presentation of the claims against the estate:
The purpose of presentation of claims against decedents of the estate in the probate court is to protect the estate of deceased persons to enable the executor or administrator will be able to examine each claim and determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed. Further, the primary object of the provisions requiring presentation is to apprise the administrator and the probate court of the existence of the claim so that a proper and timely arrangement may be made for its payment in full or by pro-rata portion in the due course of the administration. (Estate of Olave vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-29407 July 29, 1983)
4.6.2.CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE:
The following are money claims which can be charged against the estate:
1. All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent;
2. All claims for funeral expenses;
3. All claims for expenses for the last sickness of the decedent; and 4. Judgment for money against the decedent. (Section 5, Rule 86) What does the word “claims” connotes?
The word "claims" as used in statutes requiring the presentation of claims against a decedent's estate is generally construed to mean debts or demands of a pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime and could have been reduced to simple money judgments; and among these are those founded upon contract. (Gutierrez vs. Baretto-Datu, G.R. No. L-17175, July 31, 1962) Actions that does not survives the death of the party: Rationale:
This situation brings to the fore a consideration of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
SEC. 21. Where claim does not survive. — When the action is for recovery of money, debt or interest thereon, and the defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided in these rules. ( Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court)
The Philosophy behind the rule which provides for the dismissal of the civil case is that, upon the death of defendant, all money claims should be filed in the testate or interstate proceedings "to avoid useless duplicity of procedure." (Ignacio vs. Pambusco., G.R. No. L-18936, May 23, 1967)
Money claims arising from contract against the estate is an action that survives:
Generally, death of either the creditor or the debtor does not extinguish the obligation and only obligations that are personal or are identified with the persons themselves are extinguished by death. 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 as these claims are not actually extinguished. (Stronghold Insurance
vs. Republic-Asahi, G.R. No. 147561, June 22, 2006) Claims for taxes survive the death of the decedent:
Claims for taxes may be collected even after the distribution of the decedent's estate among his heirs who shall be liable therefor in proportion of their share in the inheritance. (Government of the Philippines
vs. Pamintuan, 55 Phil. 13) Reason for the rule:
The reason for the more liberal treatment of claims for taxes against a decedent's estate in the form of exception from the application of the statute of non-claims, is not hard to find. Taxes are the lifeblood of the Government and their prompt and certain availability are imperious need. (Vera vs. Hon. Fernandez, G.R. No.
L-31364 March 30, 1979)
Claims against a deceased surety on the performance bond is a claim which survive:
Death is not a defense that he or his estate can set up to wipe out the obligations under the performance bond. Consequently, petitioner as surety cannot use his death to escape its monetary obligation under its performance bond. (Stronghold Insurance vs. Republic-Asahi, G.R. No. 147561, June 22, 2006) Claims include quasi-Contract and contingent claims
In Maclan v. Garcia, Maclan filed a civil case to recover from Ruben Garcia the necessary expenses he spent as possessor of a piece of land. Garcia acquired the land as an heir of its previous owner, he set up the defense that this claim should have been filed in the special proceedings to settle the estate of his predecessor. Maclan, on the other hand, contended that his claim arises from law and not from contract, express or implied. Thus, it need not be filed in the settlement of the estate of Garcia’s predecessor, as mandated by Section 5, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court (now Section 5, Rule 86).
The court held under these facts that a claim for necessary expenses spent as previous possessor of the land is a kind of quasi-contract. Citing Leung Ben v O’Brien, it explained that the term “implied contracts,” as used in our remedial law, originated from the common law where obligations derived from quasi-contracts and from law are both considered as implied contracts. Thus, the term quasi-contract is included in the concept “implied contracts” as used in the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the liabilities of the deceased arising from quasi-contracts should be filed as claims in the settlement of his estate, as provided in Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.
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, a future event that may or may not happen. This characteristic unmistakably marks the complaint as a contingent one that must be included in the claims falling under the terms of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v.
Absolute Management Corporation, G.R. No. 170498. January 9, 2013)
4.6.3. CLAIM OF EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR AGAINST THE ESTATE Remedies of a creditor:
The contract made between the administrator and the lawyer does not bind the estate to such an extent that the lawyer can maintain an action against it and recover a judgment which is binding upon it. In such a case the creditor has two remedies:
(1)He can prosecute an action against the administrator as an individual. If judgment is rendered against the administrator and it is paid by him, when he presents his final account to the Court of First Instance as such administrator he can include the amount so paid as an expense of administration. The creditor can also
(2) Present a petition in the proceeding relating to the settlement of the estate, asking that the court, after notice to all persons interested, allow his claim and direct the administrator to pay it as an expense of administration. Whichever course is adopted the heirs and other persons interested in the estate will have a right to inquire into the necessity for making the contract and the value of the work performed by the attorney." (Ramos vs. Bidin, G.R. No. L-53650 May 28, 1988)
