SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

ASSIGNMENT # 1

I
SHCI made demands on AMC, after Cruz’’s death, for allegedly undelivered items worth
P8,331,700.00. According to AMC, these transactions could not be found in its records. Upon
investigation, AMC discovered that in 1998, Cruz received from SHCI 18 Metrobank checks
worth P31,807,500.00. These were all payable to AMC and were crossed or “for payee’s account
only.

In its Answer with counterclaims and third-party complaint against Metrobank, AMC
averred that it had no knowledge of Cruz’s transactions with SHCI and it did not receive any
money from the latter. AMC also asked the RTC to hold Metrobank liable for the subject checks
in case it is adjudged liable to SHCI.

Subsequently, Metrobank filed a motion for leave to admit fourth- party complaint
against Cruz’s estate. It alleged that Cruz’s estate should reimburse Metrobank in case it would
be held liable in the third-party complaint filed against it by AMC.

The RTC denied Metrobank’s motion and ruled that its fourth-party complaint is a kind
of quasi-contract that mandates recovery of what has been improperly paid. Quasi-contracts fall
within the concept of implied contracts that must be included in the claims required to be filed
with the judicial settlement of the deceased’s estate under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of
Court. As such claim, it should have been filed in Special Proceedings No. 99-0023, not before
RTC-12 as a fourth-party complaint.

Hence, Metrobank in its petition for certiorari asserts that it should be allowed to file a
fourth-party complaint against Cruz’s estate in the proceedings before RTC-12 as its fourth-
party complaint was filed merely to enforce its right to be reimbursed by Cruz’s estate in case it
is held liable to AMC.

1. Is Metrobank correct? Explain.

No, it is not correct for Metrobank to file a fourth-party complaint against Cruz’s estate in the
proceedings before RTC-12. 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.

Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint falls under the quasi-contracts enunciated in Article 2154 of
the Civil Code. Article 2154 embodies the concept "solutio indebiti" which arises when
something is delivered through mistake to a person who has no right to demand it. It obligates
the latter to return what has been received through mistake

2. Are quasi-contracts included in claims that should be filed pursuant to Rule 86, Section 5 of
the Rules of Court?

Yes, quasi-contracts are considered as "implied contracts". Accordingly, Section 5, Rule 86 of

the Rules of Court include all claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract,
express or IMPLIED, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent.

3. Which court shall have jurisdiction over Metrobank’s claim? Explain.

The court that has jur over Metrobank's claim is the court where the Special Proceedings No. 99-
002 is tried.
 II
On August 24, 1997, decedent Juan de la Cruz, Sr. died intestate. He was survived by his
three (3) compulsory heirs, namely: 1) Juan, Jr.; 2) Maria; and 2) Pedro. Initially, petitioner De
la Cruz Investment Corporation filed a petition for issuance of Letters of Administration of the
state of Juan, Sr. before RTC-12, Cebu City. Pending issuance of the letters of administration,
RTC-12 appointed Maria as special administrator. However, Pedro was appointed as regular
administrator after declaring Maria as unfit and unsuitable to administer the estate of their father.

A project of partition was submitted, and Pedro manifested that Oppositor Juan, Jr. had
already expressed his conformity to the Liquidation of the Inventory of the Estate of Juan, Sr. as
of August 2011, evidenced by his signature therein. He, therefore, prays that the document that
bears the conformity of the three (3) compulsory heirs of Juan, Sr. be approved. RTC-12
approved the partition. However, the distribution was deferred pending submission of proof of
payment of estate taxes. At this stage, Pedro died. Wasting no time, Juan, Jr. moved to revive the
intestate proceedings involving his father’s estate, and moved that he be appointed as the regular
administrator thereof, which was approved by RTC-12. Petitioner de la Cruz Investment
Corporation filed a Motion for Reconsideration and now moved for appointment instead of
Maria as administrator of the estate of Juan, Sr.. But RTC-12 appointed Juan, Jr. as the
administrator of Juan. Sr.’s estate.

1. Is the appointment of a regular administrator at this stage of liquidation, partition and

distribution stage of the intestate proceedings involving Juan, Sr.’s estate still necessary?

2. Will Maria’s previous non-appointment as regular administrator of Juan, Sr.’s estate bar her
present appointment as such even in lieu of Pedro who is now dead?

3. Is the appointment of Juan, Jr. as administrator of Juan, Sr.’s estate proper?