ALAN JOSEPH A.

SHEKER, Petitioner,
vs.
ESTATE OF ALICE O. SHEKER, VICTORIA S. MEDINA-Administratrix, respondents.
G.R. No. 157912 | December 13, 2007
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. :
Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: Rule 86 - How claims presented/prosecuted

Case Summary:

The petitioner, Alan Sheker was a creditor of the estate of the estate of Alice Sheker. Following the admission
of Alice Sheker’s will into probate, Alan filed a money claim against the estate. This was dismissed on the
basis of 3 grounds, non submission of certification against non forum shopping, non payment of filing fees,
and failure to submit written explanation for non personal service/filing.

On appeal, the SC overturned and ruled in favor of Alan. It held that, among others the certification against
non-forum shopping as required by the Rules of Court are only for initiatory pleadings. The present money
claim falls under Rule 86, which provides that after the granting of letters of testamentary or of 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; otherwise, they would be barred. These contingent money
claims are NOT initiatory pleadings. Thus, there was no need for a certification.

Petitioners: Alan Joseph A. Sheker

Respondents:

Estate Of Alice O. Sheker, (didn’t say how they were related)

Victoria S. Medina-Administratrix,

Doctrines Involved:
- Certification Against Non Forum Shopping – this is required ONLY for complaints and other indicatory
pleadings.
- Probate Proceedings – in probate proceedings like the present case, the initiatory pleading is the filing of
the petition or allowance of the decedent’s will.
o Under Rule 86, Sec. 1 and 5, after the granting of letters of testamentary or of 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; otherwise, they would be barred, subject to
certain exceptions.
o A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the estate.
Furthermore, in contingent claims, the claimant cannot institute a separate action. Thus, the
contingent money claim is NOT an iniatory pleading, and therefore does not require a certification
against non-forum shopping.

FACTS:
1. In a petition for probate before the RTC of Iligan, the holographic will of the decedent, Alice Sheker
was admitted into probate.
a. The RTC ordered all creditors to file their respective claims against the estate.
2. Oct. 7 2002 - The petitioner, Alan Sheker as a creditor filed a contingent claim for the following:
a. P206,250 - agent’s commission amounting in the event the sale of certain parcels of land
belonging to the estate.
 b. P275,000 – reimbursement for expenses incurred and/or to be incurred by Alan Sheker in the
course of negotiating the sale of said realties.
3. The respondent executrix (Victoria Medina) moved for the dismissal of the money claim on the
following grounds:
a. (1) the requisite docket fee, as required by Rule 141.7a had not been paid;
b. (2) petitioner failed to attach a certification against non-forum shopping;
c. (3) petitioner failed to attach a written explanation why the money claim was not filed and
served personally.
4. January 15 2003 – The RTC dismissed the money claim without prejudice.
a. Subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on April 9 2003.
5. Led to the current petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES + HELD:

W/N the ordinary rules on certification against forum shopping, written explanation for non-personal
filing, and payment of docket fees are inapplicable as the present case is a special proceeding? – NO
- Petitioner – That the RTC erred in strictly applying the rules requiring certification against forum shopping,
written explanation for non-personal fiiling and the payment of docket fees, as under Rule 72.2 of the Rules
of Court, the rules in ordinary civil actions only apply suppletory to special proceedings.
- Relevant Provision – Rule 72.2 of the rules of court provides as follows:
o Sec. 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.
- Rule – The rule is that special provisions under part II of the Rules of Court govern special proceedings.
But, in the absence of special provisions, the rules under Part I governing ordinary civil actions shall be
applicable to special proceedings, as far as practicable.
o Practicable – 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 civil actions
may be applied as much as possible and, where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said
proceedings.
o The rules of court do not categorically say that rules in ordinary civil actions are inapplicable or
merely suppletory to special proceedings.
- Application - As applied, the provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-forum
shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written explanation for non-personal service and filing,
and the payment of filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate
proceedings.
o Thus, they are applicable to special proceedings, such as the present case for settlement of the
estate of a deceased person.

W/N the failure of Alan Sheker to attach a certification against non-forum shopping was a proper
ground for dismissal? – NO

- Certification Against Forum Shopping – this is required ONLY for complaints and other indicatory
pleadings.
- Probate Proceedings – in probate proceedings like the present case, the initiatory pleading is the filing of
the petition or allowance of the decedent’s will.
o Under Rule 86, Sec. 1 and 5, after the granting of letters of testamentary or of 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; otherwise, they would be barred, subject to
certain exceptions.
- Application – Thus, money claims against an estate are similar to a motion for the recognition of creditor’s
claims and taken into consideration in the proper disposition of properties of the estate.
 o As held in Arquiza v. CA, a motion is not an initiatory pleading.
 “The office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation, but to bring a material but
incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion is filed. A
motion is not an independent right or remedy, but is confined to incidental matters in
the progress of a cause. It relates to some question that is collateral to the main object
of the action and is connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy”
o A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the estate.
Furthermore, in contingent claims, the claimant cannot institute a separate action. Thus, the
contingent money claim is NOT an iniatory pleading, and therefore does not require a certification
against non-forum shopping.

W/N filing fees must be paid at the time of filing of the contingent claim? – NO

- Pascual v. CA 1 – Filing fees constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Rule 141.2 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, the trial court has jurisdiction to act on a money claim against an estate even without the payment of
separate docket fees. Alternatively, the trial court may order the payment of such filing fees within a
reasonable time.
o This is because the trial court had already assumed jurisdiction over the action for settlement of
the estate. Thus, non-payment of filing fees for a money claim against the estate is not one of the
grounds for dismissing a money claim against the estate.

W/N the contingent claim must contain a written explanation on service and filing by registered mail?
– NO

- Rule on Personal Service – As held in Maceda v. De Guzman Vda. de Macatangay under Rule 13.11 2 of the
1997 Rules of Procedure, the general rule is personal service and filing. With other modes of service and
filing being the exception.
o Rationale – Personal service and filing expedites the action or resolution and minimizes
likely delays. Furthermore, it does away with practices such as:
 (1) serving or filing pleadings by mail to catch opposing counsel off-guard, thus leaving
the latter with little or no time to prepare, for instance, responsive pleadings or an
opposition; or
 (2) upon receiving notice from the post office that the registered mail containing the
pleading of or other paper from the adverse party may be claimed, unduly procrastinating
before claiming the parcel, or, worse, not claiming it at all, thereby causing undue delay in
the disposition of such pleading or other papers.
o Nevertheless, the rule only requires that personal service and filing is require whenever the same
is practicable.

1
This case involved the jurisdiction of a trial court 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

2
Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. — Whenever practicable, the service and
filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers
emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written
explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may
be cause to consider the paper as not filed. (n)
 o In cases where it is not practicable, other modes of service may be used. This must be accompanied
by a written explanation as to why the personal service/filing was not practicable.
- Effect of Violation – as held in Musa v. Amor, the use of the word may means that it is within the discretion
of the trial court in cases of violation of the requirement of written explanation do consider the paper as
filed or not.
o Furthermore, in n adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the
importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie
merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11.
o The SC notes that in the Musa case, the court did not dismiss the case even in the absence of a
written explanation. It considered that the facts of the case showed that personal service was
superfluous, considering that the distance between the Court of Appeals and Donsol, Sorsogon
where the petition was posted, clearly, service by registered mail [sic] would have entailed
considerable time, effort and expense
- Nature of Money Claims – The requirement of mandatory filing of money claims against the estate is for
the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased by informing the executor or administrator of the
claims against it, thus enabling him to examine each claim and to determine whether it is a proper one
which should be allowed.
o This is to enable the speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the
property to the distributees, legatees, or heirs.
o The prompt presentation and disposition of claims against the estate is done to settle its affairs as
soon as possible, to pay its debts and to distribute the residue
o This is in line with the ruling that the spirit of the probate law is the speedy settlement of estates
of deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to residue by way of inheritance
or legacy after the debts and expenses of administration have been paid.
-
- Application - the address of respondent's counsel is Lopez, Quezon, while petitioner Sonia's counsel's is
Lucena City. Lopez, Quezon is 83 kilometers away from Lucena City.
o Thus, the distances make personal service impracticable. This is a similar situation in Musa v. amor,
where a written explanation why service was not done personally may be considered superfluous.
o Furthermore, as held in Tan v. CA, a liberal construction of rules of procedure have been allowed
where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness
in not complying with the procedure prescribed.
o Instead, the lower court should have taken judicial notice of the great distance and realized the
impracticability of personal service/filing and therefore should have exercised its discretion under
Rule 13.11 to not dismiss the money claim.
-

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch
6 dated January 15, 2003 and April 9, 2003, respectively, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional
Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 6, is hereby DIRECTED to give due course and take appropriate action
on petitioner's money claim in accordance with Rule 82 of the Rules of Court.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
DISSENT:

NOTES: