Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Rule 87 since there was no allegation that they assumed Instead of doing so, however.

the plaintiffs-
the alleged obligation. appellees slept on their right. They allowed said
Case No. 1: G.R. No. L-28298 November 25, 1983  The lower court sustained the motion to dismiss proceedings to terminate and the properties to
ROSITA SANTIAGO DE BAUTISTA, ET AL., plaintiffs- on May 11, 1953. However, on December 14, be distributed to the heirs pursuant to a project
appellees, vs. VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, ET AL., defendants- 1954. plaintiffs-appellees filed with the same of partition before instituting this separate
appellants. trial court Civil Case No. 3530 against the same action. Such do not sanctioned by the above rule
defendants in the former case, with analogous for it strictly requires the prompt presentation
Facts: allegations as those embodied in the first and disposition of claims against the decedent's
 Rosendo de Guzman, deceased husband and complaint but further allege that on June 12, estate in order to settle the affairs of the estate
father of the defendants-appellants, was the 1952, Rosendo de Guzman died intestate and as soon as possible, pay off its debts and
owner and operator of a passenger jeepney that intestate proceedings were filed in the same distribute the residue. With the exception
bearing Plate No. TPU-4013, which was driven by court and docketed therein as Special provided for in the above rule, the failure of
Eugenio Medrano Y Torres. It was Medrano who Proceedings No. 1303-P, wherein on April 20, herein plaintiffs-appellees to present their claims
drove the vehicle in a negligent and reckless 1953, a project of partition was presented in and before the intestate proceedings of the estate of
manner when the jeepney turned turtle thereby approved by said Court with the five heirs Rosendo de Guzman within the prescribed
injuring passenger Numeriano Bautista, husband receiving their shares valued at P2,294.05 each, period constituted a bar to a subsequent claim
and father of plaintiffs-appellees. Numeriano and on May 14, 1953, said intestate proceedings against the estate or a similar action of the same
Bautista sustained numerous physical injuries were closed. import.
causing his demise.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss with the  It was an error on the part of the trial court to
 Eugenio Medrano, the driver, was accused and same grounds as enumerated in the former case, hold that the plaintiffs-appellees had a cause of
convicted of homicide through reckless adding the ground of res judicata. The lower action against the defendants-appellants who
imprudence by the trial court. On May 12, 1952, court denied the motion to dismiss and ruled in are the heirs of the deceased against whom the
Rosendo de Guzman died. favor of plaintiffs-appellees. Hence, this petition. liability is sought to be enforced, much less take
 Because plaintiffs failed to collect P3,000.00 from cognizance of the complaint. As in the first
Medrano as part of the award granted to them Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in giving due complaint, said court could not have assumed
by the trial court, they filed a complaint against course to the complaint of plaintiffs-appelles despite the jurisdiction over the second case for the simple
defendants-appellants. They demanded from grounds raised by defendants-appellants. reason that it was no longer acting as a probate
Rosendo de Guzman and from the defendants- court which was the proper forum to file such
appellants the payment of the sums of P3,000.00 Ruling: YES. complaint. The termination of the intestate
as subsidiary liability; P10,000.00 as actual  The SC ruled that lost their right to recover proceedings and the distribution of the estate to
exemplary and moral damages and Pl,000.00 as because of negligence and a failure to observe the heirs did not alter the fact that plaintiffs-
attorney's fees for the suit by reason of the mandatory provisions of the law and the Rules. appellees' claim was a money claim which should
death of Numeriano Bautista as related above, They overlooked the fact that they were no have been presented before the probate court.
but Rosendo de Guzman and later the herein longer suing Rosendo de Guzman who died The liability of the late Rosendo de Guzman
defendants-appellants refused to pay the same. shortly after the accident but his heirs. arose from the breach of his obligations under
 Defendants-appellants filed a motion to dismiss  Citing Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, the contract of carriage between him and the
contending that the lower court had no the SC emphasized that said rule is mandatory. unfortunate passenger. The obligations are
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the The requirement therein is for the purpose of spelled out by law but the liability arose from a
litigation and that the complaint stated no cause protecting the estate of the deceased. The breach of contractual obligations. The resulting
of action. In support of said motion, they executor or administrator is informed of the claim is a money claim.
maintained that the suit was for a money claim claims against it, thus enabling him to examine  Section 5, Rule 88 provides the only instance
against the supposed debtor who was already each claim and to determine whether it is a wherein a creditor can file an action against a
dead and as such it should be filed in testate or proper one which should be allowed. Therefore, distributee of the debtor's asset. Even under the
intestate proceedings or, in the absence of such upon the dismiss of the first complaint of herein above rule, the contingent claims must first have
proceedings, after the lapse of thirty (30) days, plaintiffs-appellees in Civil Case No. 2050, they been established and allowed in the probate
the creditors should initiate such proceedings, should have presented their claims before the court before the creditors can file an action
that the heirs could not be held liable therefor intestate proceedings filed in the same court and directly, against the distributees. Such is not the
docketed as Special Proceedings No. 1303-P. situation, however, in the case at bar. The
complaint herein was filed after the intestate
Special Proceedings Rule 87: Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators Case Digests Page 1 of 4
proceedings had terminated and the estate reversed and pointed out that the presentation estate, then the administrator should file an
finally distributed to the heirs. of the deeds of assignment executed by the ordinary action in court to recover the same.
decedent in petitioners’ favor does not Inclusion of certain shares of stock by the
Case No. 2: BETTY T. CHUA, JENNIFER T. CHUA-LOCSIN, automatically negate the existence of administrator in the inventory does not
BENISON T. CHUA, and BALDWIN T. CHUA, petitioners vs. concealment. The appellate court stated that it is automatically deprive the assignees of their
ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and COURT OF a common occurrence in estate proceedings for shares. They have a right to be heard on the
APPEALS, respondents heirs to execute simulated deeds of transfer question of ownership, when that property is
which conceal and place properties of the properly presented to the court.
Facts: decedent beyond the reach of creditors. Hence,  In the present case, some of the transferees of
 In 1999, a petition for letters of administration this petition. the shares of stock do not appear to be heirs of
was filed by herein petitioners with RTC Pasay, the decedent. Neither do they appear to be
which in return, appointed Betty Chua as Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the parties to the intestate proceedings. Taken in this
administratrix of the intestate estate of her trial court to give due course to the Motion for light, there is no reason why the trial court
husband, deceased Jose Chua. Thereafter, she Examination. should disallow the examination of the alleged
submitted to the trial court an inventory of all transferees of the shares of stocks. This is only
the real and personal properties of the deceased. Ruling: YES. for purposes of eliciting information or securing
 One of the creditors of the deceased, Absolute  The SC cited Section 6, Rule 87 of the Rules of evidence from persons suspected of concealing
Management Corporation, filed a claim on the Court. Section 6 of Rule 87 seeks to secure or conveying some of the decedent’s properties
estate in the amount of ₱63,699,437.74. It evidence from persons suspected of having to the prejudice of creditors. Petitioners’
noticed that the deceased’s shares of stocks with possession or knowledge of the properties left by admission that these persons are the decedent’s
Ayala Sales Corporation and Ayala Construction a deceased person, or of having concealed, assignees does not automatically negate
Supply, Inc. were not included in the inventory of embezzled or conveyed any of the properties of concealment of the decedent’s assets on their
assets. As a consequence, it filed a motion to the deceased part. The assignment might be simulated so as to
require Betty T. Chua to explain why she did not  The court which acquires jurisdiction over the place the shares beyond the reach of creditors.
report these shares of stocks in the inventory. properties of a deceased person through the In case the shares are eventually included in the
 Through a reply, Betty T. Chua alleged that these filing of the corresponding proceedings has estate, this inventory is merely provisional and is
shares had already been assigned and supervision and control over these properties. not determinative of the issue of ownership. A
transferred to other parties prior to the death of The trial court has the inherent duty to see to it separate action is necessary for determination of
her husband, Jose L. Chua. She attached to her that the inventory of the administrator lists all ownership and recovery of possession.
reply the deeds of assignment which allegedly the properties, rights and credits which the law  In the present case, Absolute as a creditor of the
constituted proofs of transfer. Judge Dumatol requires the administrator to include in his decedent filed the petition after the trial court
accepted the explanation as meritorious. inventory. The court also has the inherent power denied its Motion for examination. Absolute
 Absolute Management Corporation, suspecting to determine what properties, rights and credits questioned the ruling in favor of the
that the documents attached to Betty T. Chua’s of the deceased the administrator should include administratrix and heirs of the decedent.
reply were spurious and simulated, filed a or exclude in the inventory. An heir or person Although as a creditor, Absolute does have the
motion for the examination of the supposed interested in the properties of a deceased may remedy of filing another case to recover such
transferees. xxx It premised its motion on call the court’s attention that certain properties, properties, its Motion for examination was
Section 6, Rule 87, Revised Rules of Court, infra, rights or credits are left out from the inventory. intended merely to investigate and take
which states that when a person is suspected of In such a case, it is likewise the court’s duty to testimony in preparation for an independent
having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away hear the observations of such party. The court action. Aside from the administratrix and the
any of the properties of the deceased, a creditor has the power to determine if such observations heirs of the decedent, Absolute also sought to
may file a complaint with the trial court and the deserve attention and if such properties belong examine the supposed assignees of the
trial court may cite the suspected person to prima facie to the estate. decedent’s shares, who are third persons with
appear before it and be examined under oath on  However, in such proceedings the trial court has respect to the probate proceedings. The Motion
the matter of such complaint. no authority to decide whether the properties, was a preparatory move sanctioned by the Rules
 Petitioners opposed to respondent’s motion real or personal, belong to the estate or to the of Court. The denial of Absolute’s Motion was an
arguing that said provision finds no application in persons examined. If after such examination interlocutory order not subject to appeal. The
this case. The RTC denied AMC’s motion. CA there is good reason to believe that the person order of denial may, however, be challenged
examined is keeping properties belonging to the
Special Proceedings Rule 87: Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators Case Digests Page 2 of 4
before a superior court through a petition for administrator of Walter Toehl, and the proceeds of these of the same amount of P60,000.00 referred to as the
certiorari under Rule 65 sales, as well as the proceeds of the products of the mill, second item claimed in the administration proceeding.
were applied by Antholtz to the obligations incurred by
CASE DIGEST #3 him in running the business, without the improper In July 1957 appellant amended his claim in the testate
diversion of a single cent proceeding by withdrawing therefrom the item of
MARSCHALL vs. ANTHOLTZ P60,000.00, leaving only the one for refund of advance
rentals in the sum of P32,000.00.
The court as sustained by the Court of appeals dismissed
the action on the ground that the claim should have been
[ GR No. L-17175, Jul 31, 1962 ]
FACTS: prosecuted in the testate proceeding and not by ordinary
civil action.
Walter Toehl was the manager of Behn, Meyer & Co and RICARDO M. GUTIERREZ v. LUCIA MILAGROS BARRETO
also its chemist. He was also the owner of a parcel of land DATU
located in Sta. Ana, Manila. Toehl contracted Antholtz to
manage the land as oil mill. The two agreed that Antholtz 115 Phil. 741 Issue: whether or not his claim for damages based on
would conduct the business in his own name. Meanwhile,
unrealized profits is a money claim against the estate of
Antholtz was the owner of A. Murray & Co. Toehl assumed
the deceased Maria Gerardo vda. de Barreto within the
possession of the corporation with a view to reviving it MAKALINTAL, J.:
using the assets of the oil mill. After Toehl’s death, it was purview of Rule 87, Section 5.
found that he was short in his account with Behn to the Facts:
extent of P150 Million. A claim was made against the
estate of Toehl. Marschall was appointed administrator of In 1940 Maria Gerardo Vda. de Barreto, owner of 371
the estate, and the present action was institute to recover hectares of fishpond lands in Pampanga, leased the same Ruling: The word "claims" as used in statutes requiring
possession of the oil mill property and hold Antholtz to appellant Gutierrez for a term to expire on May 1, 1947. the presentation of claims against a decedent's estate is
personally liable. Behn presupposes that Toehl and On November 1, 1941, pursuant to a decision of the generally construed to mean debts or demands of a
Antholtz were in collusion to put the money in the oil mill. pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against
Department of Public Works rendered after due
the deceased in his lifetime and could have been reduced
investigation, the dikes of the fishponds were opened at to simple money judgments; and among these are those
ISSUE: WON Antholtz is liable.
several points, resulting in their destruction and in the loss founded upon contract. The claim in this case is based on
RULING: of great quantities of fish inside, to the damage and contract specifically, on a breach thereof. It falls squarely
prejudice of the lessee. under section 5 of Rule 87.
YES. In section 711 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is
The only actions that may be instituted against the
declared that if any person, before the granting of letters In 1956, the lessor having died in 1948 and the executor or administrator are those to recover real or
testamentary or of administration on the estate of a corresponding testate proceeding to settle her estate personal property from the estate, or to enforce a lien
deceased person, embezzles, or alienates, any of the having been opened, Gutierrez filed a claim therein for two thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to
effects of such deceased person, such person shall be
items: first, for the sum of P32,000.00 representing person or property, real or personal. Rule 88, section 1.
liable to an action in favor of the executor or administrator
advance rentals he had paid to the decedent and second, The instant suit is not one of them.
of such estate for double the value of the property sold,
embezzled, or alienated, to be recovered for the benefit of for the sum of P60,000.00 as damages in the concept of The orders appealed from are affirmed.
the estate. But this provision has reference primarily to unearned profits, that is, profits which the claimant failed
funds that are lost by embezzlement or alienation, and it to realize because of the breach of the lease contract
cannot be understood as making the manager of a going allegedly committed by the lessor.
concern liable for proceeds of sales applied by him to the
proper uses of the business, as occurred in this case. The On June 7, 1957 appellant commenced the instant
proof shows that the personal property other than the CASE DIGEST NO. 5
ordinary civil action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
products of the mill, sold by Antholtz in the manner
mentioned, was sold with the consent of the manager of against the executrix of the testate estate for the recovery RIOFERIO
Behn, Meyer & Co., H. Mij., and with the consent of the vs.

Special Proceedings Rule 87: Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators Case Digests Page 3 of 4
COURT OF APPEALS Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence
recognizes two exceptions, viz: (1) if the executor or
[G.R. No. 129008. January 13, 2004] administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit; and (2)
when the administrator is alleged to have participated in
TINGA, J.: the act complained of and he is made a party defendant. [
Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to seek judicial relief
Facts: to recover property of the estate is as compelling when
Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will leaving several there is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where
personal and real properties. Private there is an appointed administrator but he is either
respondents discovered that petitioner Teodora Rioferio (t disinclined to bring suit or is one of the guilty parties
he paramour) and her children executed an himself.
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person wit
h Quitclaim, real estate mortgages and
transfers involving the properties of the estate of the
decedent. To recover their rights, Alfonso “Clyde” P.
Orfinada III
fi l e d a Petition for Letters of Administration
praying that letters of administration encompassing the
estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. be issued to him.

Whether the heirs (respondents) may bring suit
to recover property of the estate pending the
appointment of an administrator is the issue in this case?


Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs

without doubt have legal personality to bring suit in behalf
of the estate of the decedent in accordance
with the provision
of Article 777 of the New Civil Code “that (t)he rights to su
ccession are transmitted from the moment of
the death of the decedent.” The provision in turn is the
foundation of the principle that the property, rights and
obligations to the extent and value of the inheritance of a
person are transmitted through his death to another or
others by his will or by operation of law. Even if
administration proceedings have already been
commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an
administrator has not yet been appointed. The heirs
cannot be expected to wait for the appointment of
an administrator; then wait further to see if the
administrator appointed would care enough to file
a suit to protect the rights and the interests of
the deceased; and in the mean time do nothing while the
rights and the properties of the decedent are violated or

Special Proceedings Rule 87: Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators Case Digests Page 4 of 4