AFAN - v - DE GUZMAN
EN BANC, G.R. No. L-14713, April 28,
1960 | Intestate Estate of ARSENIO R. AFAN, deceased. MARIAN AFAN, petitioner-appellee, vs.
APOLINARIO S. DE GUZMAN, creditor-appellant. |CONCEPCION, J.
Facts:
1.
It
appears that, on July 12, 1957, De Guzman filed, in this special proceeding for
the settlement of intestate estate of Arsenio R. Afan, a claim for P1,000,
allegedly due from the latter, with interest thereon, within 30 days from
August 16, 1949, as set forth in a promissory note then issued by Afan.
2.
The
administratrix of his estate objected to the consideration of the claim upon
the ground, among others, that it had been filed long after the expiration of
the period for the presentation of claims against said estate.
3.
the
lower court issued the order refusing to entertain the aforementioned claim.
4.
De
Guzman invokes, in support of his appeal, section 2, Rule 87 of the Rules of
Court, reading:
Time within which claims
shall be filed.—In the notice provided in the preceding section,
the court shall state the time for the filing of claims against the estate,
which shall not be more than twelve nor less than six months after the date of
the first publication of the notice. However, at any time before an order of
distribution is entered, on application of a creditor who has failed to file
his claim within the time previously limited, the court may, for cause shown
and on such terms as are equitable, allow such claims to be filed within a time
not exceeding one month.
Relying upon this provision, De Guzman
maintains that the lower court should have entertained his claim, the same
having been filed prior to the distribution of the estate of the deceased.
Issue: Whether or not the contention of
De Guzman is correct. Held: No.
Ratio:
-
The
second sentence thereof clothes the court with authority to permit the filing
of a claim after the lapse of the period stated in the first sentence, but
prior to and distribution, subject to the following conditions, namely:
1.
there
must be tin application therefor;
2.
a
cause must be shown why the permission should be granted; and
3.
the
extension of time granted for the filing of the claim shall not exceed one (1)
month.
-
De
Guzman alleges, for the first time, that "he had no actual knowledge of
the fact that the estate of the deceased . . . was then already in the process
of settlement . . . . " — BUT HE REALLY HAD.
-
During
the lifetime of Afan, De Guzman instituted, against him, Civil Case No. 1148 of
the CFI Rizal, to recover the amount of the promissory note above referred to.
-
On
appeal, the decision of said court in favor of De Guzman was set aside, and a
trial de novo ordered, by the CA.
-
Sometime
after the records had been remanded to the lower court, Afan died. That court
issued an order requiring counsel for his heirs "to submit to the court
the number of the intestate estate proceedings of the deceased
Arsenio R. Afan now pending in the CFI Manila."
-
This
order was complied with, by the filing with the CFI Rizal, in said Case No.
1148, of a "notification" containing the required information, copy
of which "notification" was served upon counsel for De Guzman. His counsel filed in said case a
motion for the appointment of a legal representative of the deceased Afan, to
substitute him as defendant therein. Accordingly, said court gave De Guzman
five (5) days within which to submit the names of the legal heirs of Afan who
may be appointed as his legal representative.
-
De
Guzman filed a statement, entitled "compliance", setting forth the
names, ages and addresses of the heirs of the deceased. Yet, De Guzman choose
not to file his claim in such proceeding until July 27, 1957, one year and a half after the filing of his
aforementioned "compliance."
-
Instead
of furnishing a "cause" for the extension of the reglementary period
for the filing of his claim, this omission on the part of De Guzman fully
justifies the denial of such extension and the order appealed from. Failure
to file a claim within the time provided therefor upon the sole ground that the
claimant was negotiating with one of the heirs for payment, is not sufficient
to justify extension, and that, where a claimant knew of the death of the
decedent and for four (4) or five (5) months thereafter he did nothing to
present his claim, this can hardly be considered as a good excuse for such neglect.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
