CASE DIGEST

Barredo v. CA
Special Proceedings

Court Supreme Court (EN BANC)

Citation G.R. No. L-17863

Date November 28, 1962

Petitioner MANUEL H. BARREDO, ET AL.

Respondent THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

Ponente J. Reyes, J.B.L.

Relevant topic V. Claims against the estate

Prepared by Clark S. Orjalo

CASE SUMMARY:
McDonough died and his estate became subject to intestate proceedings before the CFI Manila. The administrator
caused the publication of a notice to creditors requiring them to claim with the clerk of court within 6 months, reckoned
from the date of its first publication (August 23, 1945) and expiring on February 23, 1946. The heirs of Fausto Barredo
filed a belated claim on the estate of McDonough on October 22, 1947 [way after February 23, 1946]. The lower court
allowed the belated claim, but the CA reversed. The CA held that that the "one month" period referred to in Section 2
of Rule 87 of Rules of Court is to be counted from and after the expiration of the six-month period fixed in the
published notice to claims.

W/N the CA erred in disallowing the heirs of Barredo from claiming belatedly – NO

There is no doubt that the claim of the heirs of Barredo was filed after the regular period for filing claims, but the Rules
allow tardy claims upon showing of cause for failure to present claim on time. Thus, the probate court's discretion in
allowing a claim after the regular period for filing claims but before entry of an order of distribution presupposes not
only claim for apparent merit but also that cause existed to justify the tardiness in filing the claim . IN THIS
CASE, petitioners alleged as excuse for their tardiness the recent recovery of the papers of the late Fausto Barredo
from the possession of his lawyer who is now deceased. This ground insufficient, due to the availability, and
knowledge by the petitioners, of the annotation at the back of the certificate of title of the mortgage embodying the
instant claim, as well as the payment of P20,000.00 made by the Japanese military authorities.

It must be noted, however, that the Court in this case also ruled that the pronouncement in Estate of Howard J.
Edmands that the one-month period for filing late claims mentioned in Section 2, Rule 87 should be counted from the
expiration of the regular 6-month period is a mere obiter. Paulin v. Aquino has clarified that the one-month period
specified in this section x x x is to begin from the order authorizing the filing of the claims. It does not mean that the
extension of one month starts from the expiration of the original period fixed by the court for the presentation of
claims.

FACTS:

● On December 21, 1949, McDonough executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage (over McDonough's
leasehold rights on a land in Paranaque owned by Factor, and over four houses built thereon by McDonough)
in favor of Fausto Barredo.
o The lease of McDonough over the land in Paranaque and the mortgage were all inscribed at the back
of the certificate of title of the land.
● Barredo died on October 8, 1942. Barredo's heirs, in a deed of extrajudicial partition, adjudicated unto
themselves the secured credit of the deceased, and had the same recorded on the aforesaid certificate of title.
● However, in August 1994, the annotation was cancelled after Manuel Barredo was ordered to appeal before
an officer of the Japanese Imperial Army and was commanded to bring with him all the documents pertaining
to the mortgage executed by the late McDonough whose private properties, because of his enemy citizenship,
were "appropriated by the triumphant invader"
o Manuel was paid P20,000 in Japanese war notes by the occupation authorities and was made to sign
a certification requiring him to cause the cancellation of the mortgage in the Register of Deeds, in
consideration of the P20k. Accordingly, the mortgage was cancelled, and such cancellation was
inscribed at the back of the title.

1
CASE DIGEST
Barredo v. CA
Special Proceedings

● McDonough died on March 15, 1945 and his estate became subject to intestate proceedings before the CFI
Manila.
o The administrator caused the publication of a notice to creditors requiring them to claim with the clerk
of court within 6 months, reckoned from the date of its first publication (August 23, 1945) and expiring
on February 23, 1946.
● On October 22, 1947, the heirs of Fausto Barredo filed their belated claim against the estate of
McDonough.
o The administrator of McDonough's estate opposed, but the lower court allowed the claim.
Nevertheless, the CA reversed the lower court.
● The Barredo heirs now appeal to the SC, arguing that the CA erred in in holding that the "one month"
period referred to in Section 2 of Rule 87 of Rules of Court is to be counted from and after the
expiration of the six-month period fixed in the published notice to claims.
● In view of the burning and destruction of the buildings which were the subject of the mortgage, the petitioners
manifested their wish to abandon their security and prosecute the claim against the estate as for a simple
money debt, and that when the Barredo heirs filed their claim, no order of distribution had entered in the
proceedings.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE #1 HELD

W/N the CA erred in disallowing the heirs of Barredo from claiming belatedly

NO (CA was correct)

RATIO:
- The probate court previously fixed the period for filing claims at six (6) months reckoned from the date of first
publication, and the said notice to creditors was first published on 23 August 1945. The present claim was
filed on 22 October 1947. There is no doubt, therefore, that the 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.
o The probate court's discretion in allowing a claim after the regular period for filing claims
but before entry of an order of distribution presupposes not only claim for apparent merit but also
that cause existed to justify the tardiness in filing the claim.
- IN THIS CASE, petitioners alleged as excuse for their tardiness the recent recovery of the papers of the late
Fausto Barredo from the possession of his lawyer who is now deceased.
o This ground insufficient, due to the availability, and knowledge by the petitioners, of the annotation at
the back of the certificate of title of the mortgage embodying the instant claim, as well as the payment
of P20,000.00 made by the Japanese military authorities.
 Thus, the CA is correct and the lower court should not have allowed the belated claim since
the tardiness was not backed by sufficient cause.
- It must be noted, however, that the Court in this case ruled that the pronouncement in Estate of Howard J.
Edmands that the one-month period for filing late claims mentioned in Section 2, Rule 87 should be counted
from the expiration of the regular 6-month period is a mere obiter.
o On the other hand, Paulin v. Aquino has clarified that the one-month period specified in this section x
x x is to begin from the order authorizing the filing of the claims. It does not mean that the extension of
one month starts from the expiration of the original period fixed by the court for the presentation of
claims.
-
RULING:

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the appealed decision is affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.