Luisa Kho Montaner, et.al. vs.

Shari’a District Court

Gr no. 174975, January 20, 2009

FACTS: Petitioner Luisa Kho Montaner and Alejandro Montaner, Sr. were married and had children. On
1956, Montaner, Sr. died.

In 2005, private respondents Liling Disangcopan and her daughter, Almahleen Montaner filed a
complaint for the judicial partition of properties before the Shari’a District Court, claiming that they are
the first family of the decedent. In the petition, they are praying for the partition of the estate of the
decedent, and the appointment of an administrator for the estate of the decedent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the proceeding before the Shari’a District Court is an ordinary civil action against
a deceased person

HELD: the proceedings before the court a quo are for the issuance of letters of administration,
settlement, and distribution of the estate of the deceased, which is a special proceeding.

Rules of Court defines a special proceeding as “a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a
right, or a particular fact.”

This Court has applied the Rules, particularly the rules on special proceedings, for the settlement of the
estate of a deceased Muslim. In a petition for the issuance of letters of administration, settlement, and
distribution of estate, the applicants seek to establish the fact of death of the decedent and later to be
duly recognized as among the decedent’s heirs, which would allow them to exercise their right to
participate in the settlement and liquidation of the estate of the decedent.

Here, the respondents seek to establish the fact of Alejandro Montaner, Sr.’s death and, consequently,
for private respondent Amahleen Liling S. Montaner to be recognized as among his heirs.

As a special proceeding, the purpose of the settlement of the estate of the decedent is to determine all
the assets of the estate, to pay its liabilities, and to distribute the residual to those entitled to the same.

Sheker vs. Estate of Alice Sheker

Regional Trial Court (RTC) admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice O. Sheker and
thereafter issued an order for all the creditors to file their respective claims against the estate.
In compliance therewith, petitioner filed on October 7, 2002 a contingent claim for agent's
commission due him amounting to approximately PhP206,250.00 in the event of the sale of
certain parcels of land belonging to the estate, and the amount of PhP 275,000 as
reimbursement for expenses incurred and/or to be incurred by petitioner in the course of
negotiating the sale of said realties.

Petitioner maintains that the RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate proceeding the rules
requiring a certificate of non-forum shopping, a written explanation for non-personal filing, and
the payment of docket fees from filing of the claim.  He insist that sec. 2, Rules 72 of the Rules
of court provides that rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only in a
 suppletory manner.

ISSUE: WON rules in ordinary actions are only supplementary to rules in special proceedings?

HELD:

Sec.2, Rule 72, provides:  In the absences of special provisions, the rules provided for in
ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings.

The word "practicable" is defined as possible to practice or perform; capable of being put into
practice, done or accomplished.  This means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in
ordinary actions maybe applied in special proceedings as much as possible and where doing so
would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings.

No where in the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules in ordinary actions are in
applicable or merely suppletory to special proceedings.

Monday, June 10, 2019

Hilado vs Court of Appeals Case Digest GR No. 164108 ; May
8, 2009

Hilado vs Court of Appeals Case Digest

GR No. 164108 ;  May 8, 2009
  

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Who may be intervene in a Settlement of Estates

- Has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an
interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court.
- Must be actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent and
expectant. (Batama Farmers’ Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Hon. Rosal., 149 Phil.
514, 519 (1971).

b) Basis of the meaning of Intervenor in a Special Proceeding

Section 1 of Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 19 – Intervention - Section 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has a legal interest
in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or
is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in
the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice
the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights
may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. (2[a], [b]a, R12)

c) Why Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is applicable in a Special Proceeding?

Rule 72 - Section 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. — In the absence of special
provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in
special proceedings.
- Section 2, Rule 72 provides that “[i]n the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for
in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable to special proceedings.” We can
readily conclude that notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72, intervention as set forth under Rule
19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent whose credit is based on a contingent claim. The
definition of “intervention” under Rule 19 simply does not accommodate contingent claims.

d) Instances an “interested person” may participate in the testate or intestate proceedings.

(1) Section 1, Rule 79 - recognizes the right of "any person interested" to oppose the issuance
of letters testamentary and to file a petition for administration;"
(2) Section 3, Rule 79, - mandates the giving of notice of hearing on the petition for letters of
administration to the known heirs, creditors, and "to any other persons believed to have interest
in the estate;"
(3) Section 1, Rule 76, which allows a "person interested in the estate" to petition for the
allowance of a will;
(4) Section 6 of Rule 87 - allows an individual interested in the estate of the deceased "to
complain to the court of the concealment, embezzlement, or conveyance of any asset of the
decedent, or of evidence of the decedent’s title or interest therein;"
(5) Section 10 of Rule 85 - requires notice of the time and place of the examination and
allowance of the Administrator’s account "to persons interested;"
(6) Section 7(b) of Rule 89 - requires the court to give notice "to the persons interested" before it
may hear and grant a petition seeking the disposition or encumbrance of the properties of the
estate; and
(7) Section 1, Rule 90 - allows "any person interested in the estate" to petition for an order for
the distribution of the residue of the estate of the decedent, after all obligations are either
satisfied or provided for.

e) Claims which must be filed under the notice to creditors required under Rule 86
RULE 86 - Claims Against Estate - Section 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If
not filed, barred; exceptions. — All claims for money against the decent, arising from contract,
express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral
expenses and expense for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against
the decent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever,
except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that the executor or
administrator may bring against the claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences
an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the
debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent, instead of presenting
them independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against
each other in such action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount
so determined shall be considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim had
been presented directly before the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due,
or contingent, may be approved at their present value.
- Claims based on contract, whether express or implied, even if contingent can be filed under
the notice to creditors required under Rule 86.
- Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict do not fall within the class of claims to be filed under the
notice to creditors required under Rule 86. (Aguas v. Llemos, et al., 116 Phil. 112 (1962); Leung
Ben v. O'Brien, 38 Phil. 182, 189-194 (1918)
Reason: These actions, being as they are civil, survive the death of the decedent and may be
commenced against the administrator pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87.

f) How Claims Based on Civil Actions For Tort or Quasi-delict are Brought Against the estate.
RULE 87- Actions By and Against Executors and Administrators - Section 1. Actions which
may and which may not be brought against executor or administrator. — No action upon a claim
for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor
or administrator; but to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate,
or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property,
real or personal, may be commenced against him.
- Claims based on Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict are brought against the estate through
Sec. 1 of Rule 87

g) A person who is not considered an “interested person” cannot intervene in an intestate

proceeding; Exceptions.
General Rule: A person who is not considered an “interested person” cannot intervene in an
intestate proceeding.
Exception: Such persons not deemed “interested persons” may be allowed to seek certain
prayers or reliefs from the intestate court not explicitly provided for under the Rules, if the prayer
or relief sought is necessary to protect their interest in the estate, and there is no other modality
under the Rules by which such interests can be protected.
h) Effect of the Exception to the General Rule
Claimants will have the right to be furnished with copies of all processes and orders issued in
connection with the intestate proceedings, as well as the pleadings filed by the administrator of
the estate.
Reasons: They are in fact "interested persons" under Rule 135, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioners would be duly alerted of the developments in the intestate proceedings and this
would allow them to pursue the appropriate remedies should their interests be compromised.

RULE 135 - Powers and Duties of Courts and Judicial Officers - Sec 2. Publicity of
proceedings and records. — The sitting of every court of justice shall be public, but any court
may, in its discretion, exclude the public when the evidence to be adduced is of such nature as
to require their exclusion in the interest of morality or decency. The records of every court of
justice shall be public records and shall be available for the inspection of any interested person,
at all proper business hours, under the supervision of the clerk having custody of such records,
unless the court shall, in any special case, have forbidden their publicity, in the interest of
morality or decency.

i) Instances when notice has to be given to interested parties  under Rule 135 of the Rules of
Court
(1) Sec. 10, Rule 85 - time and place of examining and allowing the account of the executor or
administrator;
(2) Sec. 7(b) of Rule 89 - concerning the petition to authorize the executor or administrator to
sell personal estate, or to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber real estates; and;
(3) Sec. 1, Rule 90 - regarding the hearing for the application for an order for distribution of the
estate residue. After all, even the administratrix has acknowledged in her submitted inventory,
the existence of the pending cases filed by the petitioners.

j) Proper remedy for complaints against the general competence of the administrator,

RULE 82 - Section 2. Court may be remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator.
Proceeding upon death, resignation, or removal. — If an executor or administrator neglects to
render his account and settle the estate according to law, or to perform an order or judgment of
the court, or a duty expressly provided by these rules, or absconds, or becomes insane, or
otherwise incapable or insuitable to discharge the trust, the court may remove him, or in its
discretion, may permit him to resign. When an executor or administrator dies, resign, or is
removed the remaining executor or administrator may administer the the trust alone, unless the
court grants letters to someone to act with him. If there is no remaining executor or
administrator, administration may be to any suitable person.
- It is the proper remedy to seek the removal of the administrator.
- A creditor, even a contingent one, would have the personality to seek such relief.
Reason why a creditor who has contingent claim on the estate can seek such remedy:
The interest of the creditor in the estate relates to the preservation of sufficient assets to answer
for the debt, and the general competence or good faith of the administrator is necessary to fulfill
such purpose

FACTS: Well-known sugar magnate Benedicto died intestate. He was survived by his wife and
only daughter. At the time of his death, there were two pending civil cases against Benedicto
involving the petitioners. Benedicto’s wife filed with the RTC a petition for the issuance of letters
of administration in her favor. RTC issued an order appointing her as administrator of the estate
of her deceased husband and issuing letters of administration in her favor.

Petitioners filed with the RTC a Manifestation/Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela praying that they be
furnished with copies of all processes and orders pertaining to the intestate
proceedings. Private respondent opposed disputing that the petitioners do not have the legal
personality to do so.

RTC and CA denied such manifestation/motion. CA dismissed the petition citing that the claims

of petitioners against the decedent were contingent or expectant, as these were still pending
litigation in separate proceedings before other courts. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE/S:

1) WON the petitioners can intervene in the intestate proceedings of Roberto Benedicto?

2) WON the claims of petitioners can be filed under the notice to creditors required under Rule
86?
3) WON petitioners can still intervene in any matter in the intestate proceeding even if they are
not considered “interested persons” who can intervene in the case?

HELD:

1) NO. Section 1 of Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that

an intervenor "has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the
parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution
or other disposition of property in the custody of the court. Case law has consistently held that
the legal interest required of an intervenor "must be actual and material, direct and immediate,
and not simply contingent and expectant.”
The claims of petitioners against the decedent are contingent or expectant, as these were still
pending litigation in separate proceedings before other courts. Hence petitioners cannot to
intervene in the intestate proceedings.

2) NO. The claims that can be filed under RULE 86 are enumerated under Section 5 of the said
rule. Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict is not among those enumerated. Hence petitioner’s
claims
does not fall within the class of claims to be filed under the notice to creditors required under
Rule 86. These actions, being as they are civil, survive the death of the decedent and may be
commenced against the administrator pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87. Hence, the merits of
petitioners’ claims against Benedicto are to be settled in the civil cases where they were raised,
and not in the intestate proceedings.

3) YES. The petitioners have no general right to intervene. But they may be allowed to seek
certain prayers or reliefs from the intestate court not explicitly provided for under the Rules, if
the prayer or relief sought is necessary to protect their interest in the estate, and there is no
other modality under the Rules by which such interests can be protected. Hence petitioners are
granted the right to be furnished with copies of all processes and orders issued in connection
with the intestate proceedings, as well as the pleadings filed by the administrator of the estate.
The reasons for this is that they are in fact "interested persons" under Rule 135, Sec. 2 of the
Rules of Court