Rule 86 Case # 1: Sui Man Hui Chan vs. CA liable for them.
liable for them. Section 5 Rule 86 does not apply in this
Facts:
Ramon Chan, lessee, entered into a contract of
lease with Napoleon Medalla, lessor. The agreement
stipulated, among other things, that the contract shall
be valid for 10 years from July 15, 1988 to July 15, 1998;
that the lessee shall pay the realty taxes; and that the
agreement shall be binding upon their heirs and
successors-in-interest.
Both Chan and Medalla died during the
effectivity of the contract. Their heirs, herein
petitioners and private respondent respectively,
continued the contract.
Petitioners, however, failed to pay the monthly
rentals and realty taxes on the property, which
prompted private respondent to send demand letters to
petitioners. The latter vacated the premises but did not
pay the unpaid rentals and realty taxes, prompting
private respondent to file a case for collection of sum of
money. The RTC and the CA decided the case for the
private respondent. Petitioners, after filing and answer
to the complaint, moved for the dismissal of the case
claiming that the case should be filed against the estate
of Ramon Chan in an estate proceeding pursuant to
Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court and claiming
further that they are not parties-in-interest.
Issue:
W/N the CA erred in affirming the judgment of
the RTC denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss.
Held:
No. Petitioners are parties-in-interest.
Petitioner Chan is an heir of Ramon Chan and successor-
in-interest of the business, continuing to operate the
business after the death of Ramon Chan. Moreover, a
lease contract is not essentially personal in character.
The rights and obligations therein are transmissible to
the heirs, except when the rights and obligations are
not transmissible by a) their nature; b) stipulation; or c)
provision of law. Moreover, as to petitioner’s
contention that the claim should be filed against the
estate of Ramon Chan pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 86,
the Court found that the unpaid rentals sought to be
claimed did not accrue during the lifetime of Ramon
Chan, but after his death. His estate might not be held
case.
Rule 86 Case # 2: Martinez vs NLRC
Facts:
Raul Martinez is a taxi operator with private
respondents working for him as drivers. When Raul
died, his mother, herein petitioner, took over the
business, securing new drivers for said taxi units.
Respondents filed a claim with the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal and violation of PD 851, specifically on
non-payment of the 13th month pay.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on
the following grounds: a) private respondents’ claims
being personal were extinguished upon the death of
Raul; b) petitioner was a mere housewife who did not
possess competence to manage the business; and c)
private respondents were not entitled to 13th month
pay because the existence of employer-employee
relationship was doubtful on account of the boundary
system adopted by the parties.
The NLRC reversed the decision of the LA
claiming that a) private respondents were regular
drivers because of payment of wages; b) the
management of the business passed on to petitioner;
and c) the claim of private respondents survived the
death of Raul considering that the business did not
cease operation but continued presumably.
Issue:
W/N the NLRC acted with grave abuse of
discretion in reversing the LA’s decision.
Held:
Yes. Petitioner’s claim that the 13th month pay
pertains to the personal obligation of Raul which did not
survive his death is well-taken. Unless expressly
assumed, labor contracts are not enforceable against
the transferee of an enterprise, being contracts in
personam. The claim of private respondents should
have been filed instead in an intestate proceeding
involving the estate of Raul Martinez in accordance with
Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. Under this rule,
upon the death of the decedent, 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. This, private
respondents failed to do, hence, their claim must be
dismissed.
Rule 86 Case # 3: Barredo vs CA
Facts:
The heirs of the late Fausto Barredo filed a
belated claim to collect the face value of a promissory
note for Php 20,000.00 plus 12% interest per annum
from December 21, 1949 to the date of its maturity
from the intestate estate of Charles McDonough.
Upon Fausto’s death on October 8, 1942, his
heirs, in a deed of extrajudicial partition, adjudicated
unto themselves the secured credit of the deceased,
and had the same recorded on the certificate of title.
The annotation was, however, cancelled, by an order of
the Japanese Imperial Army and with payment of
Japanese war notes to Fausto.
McDonough died on March 15, 1945. An
intestate proceeding was instituted thereafter with the
requisite publication. On October 22, 1947, herein
petitioners filed their belated claim against the estate of
McDonough. The claim was opposed by the
administrator. The lower court allowed the claim, but
the CA reversed the allowance. Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
W/N the CA erred in reversing the allowance of
the belated claim filed by herein petitioners.
Held:
No. The probate court previously fixed the
period of filing claims at 6 months reckoned from the
date of first publication. Said notice to creditors was
first published on August 23, 1945. The present claim
was filed on October 22, 1947. There is no doubt
therefore that the present claim was filed outside of the
period previously fixed. But, a tardy claim may be
allowed at the discretion of the court, upon showing of
cause for failure to present said claim on time, which
herein petitioners failed to substantiate, their ground
being due to the recent recovery of Fausto’s papers
from the possession of his lawyer who is now deceased.
The ground is insufficient due to the knowledge of
petitioners of the annotation at the back of the
certificate of title. The order of the trial court allowing
the late claim without justification should be reversed
because under Section 2, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court,
said court has no authority to admit a belated claim for
no cause or for an insufficient cause.
Rule 86 Case # 4: Sheker vs Estate of Alice O. Sheker
Facts:
The RTC admitted to probate the holographic
will of Alice O. Sheker, and thereafter issued an order
for all creditors to file their respective claims against the
estate. In compliance therewith, herein petitioner filed
a contingent claim for agent’s commission and
reimbursement for expenses incurred in negotiating the
sale of realties belonging to the estate. The executrix
moved for the dismissal of said money claim against the
estate on the grounds that, among other things,
petitioner failed to attach a certification against non-
forum shopping.
Issue:
W/N the RTC erred in dismissing petitioner’s
contingent money claim against respondent estate for
failure of petitioner to attach to his motion a
certification against non-forum shopping.
Held:
Yes. The certification for non-forum shopping is
required only for complaints and other initiatory
pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent
money claim against the estate of a decedent is an
initiatory pleading. In the present case, the whole
probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the
petition for allowance of the decedent’s will. Under
Sections 1 & 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, after
granting letters testamentary or administration, all
persons having money claims against the decedent are
mandated to file or notify the court and the estate
administrator of their respective money claims.
A money claim is only an incidental matter in
the main action for the settlement of the decedent’s
estate; more so if the claim is contingent since the
claimant cannot even institute a separate action for a
mere contingent claim. Hence, herein petitioner’s
contingent money claim, not being an initiatory
pleading, does not require a certification against non-
forum shopping.