MONTANER VS SHARIA

Facts:
Luisa Kho Montañer, a Roman Catholic, married Alejandro Montañer, Sr. at the
Immaculate
Conception Parish in Cubao, Quezon City. Alejandro died. Petitioners herein are their
three children.
Liling Disangcopan and her daughter, Almahleen, both Muslims, filed a "Complaint"
for the judicial
partition of properties before the Shari’a District Court. They claim to be the first
family of Alejandro.
Petitioner children filed an Answer with a Motion to Dismiss becasue Discangcopan
failed to pay the
correct amount of docket fees. Petitioners point to Disangcopan’s petition which
contains an allegation
estimating the decedent’s estate as the basis for the conclusion that what private
respondents paid as
docket fees was insufficient.
Issue:
partition of

WON the proper docket fees were paid for “Complaint” for the judicial

properties.

Held:

Yes, only because the petitioner children failed to present the clerk of
court’s assessment.
Filing the appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket
fees vest a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter. If the party filing the case paid less than
the correct amount for
the docket fees because that was the amount assessed by the clerk of court, the
responsibility of making
a deficiency assessment lies with the same clerk of court. In such a case, the lower
court concerned will

and no written explanation was made as to why there was no personal service of the claim. 2002. the party concerned will be required to pay the deficiency. because of a party’s reliance on the clerk of court’s insufficient assessment of the docket fees. a contingent claim for agent's commission in the total amount of P481. 7. On Oct. no certification for non-forum shopping was attached.not automatically lose jurisdiction. the records do not include this assessment. The court thereon dismissed the claim. As every citizen has the right to assume and trust that a public officer charged by law with certain duties knows his duties and performs them in accordance with law.250. the party filing the case cannot be penalized with the clerk of court’s insufficient assessment. petitioner children did not present the clerk of court’s assessment of the docket fees. . There can be no determination of whether Disangcopan correctly paid the docket fees without the clerk of court’s assessment. However. Moreover. the executrix of the estate moved for the dismissal of the money claim on the ground that no docket fee was paid.00 was filed by petitioner. However. ALAN SHEKER VS ESTATE OF ALICE SHEKER Facts: The will of Alice Sheker was admitted by the court and thereafter all creditors were ordered to file their respective claims against the estate. In the case at bar.

that the trial court has jurisdiction to act on a money claim (attorney's fees) against an estate for services rendered by a lawyer to the administratrix to assist her in fulfilling her duties to the estate even without payment of separate docket fees because the filing fees shall constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2. of non-forum shoping. and make a personal service. Petition granted. the Court ruled in Pascual v. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent money claim against the estate of a decedent is an initiatory pleading On the issue of filing fees. Court of Appeals. Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. attach a cert. Comment: Yes. 2. Rule 72 of the Rules of Court because such calls also for practicabiliy for it to apply other than the absence of special provisions. Ruling: The court erred in strictly applying Sec. or the trial court may order the payment of such filing fees within a reasonable time. as in Musa v. on the issue of personal service.Issue: Whether or not the court erred in dismissing the money claim for failure to pay the docket fee. in this case the court was too blinded with its sense of duty to follow to the rules . a written explanation why service was not done personally “might have been superfluous" because the distance from the petitioner's residence and the respondent court is very far. Amor.

in the interest of substantial justice. The court should have relaxed and liberally construed the procedural rule on the requirement of a written explanation for non-personal service. it would be the estate that would benefit upon being given notice of a money claim against it so it can be inspected and verified .to the letters. Because in the end.