Substantial justice
In the settlement of the decedent’s estate, the filing of a money claim in the probate court is mandatory for the purpose of protecting the estate by informing the executor or administrator of the claims against it. Is such filing subject to the rules requiring payment of docket fees, submission of certification of non-forum shopping and a written explanation why the claim was not filed and served personally if other modes of filing and service were resorted to? These are questions resolved in this case of the estate of Celia.
When Celia died she left a holographic will for the disposition of her properties. Upon petition of Mina who was named executrix of the will, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
In compliance with said order, Peter, a resident of Makati filed a contingent money claim for agent’s commission due him amounting to approximately P206,250 in the event of the sale of certain parcels of land belonging to the estate, and the amount of P275,000 as reimbursement for expenses he incurred in the course of negotiating for the sale of said realties.
Mina moved for the dismissal of the said money claim of Peter on the ground that the docket fee had not been paid as required by Section 7(a) Rule 141, no certification against non-forum shopping was attached as required by Section 5, Rule 7 and the claim was not filed and served personally without the necessary explanation on why it was not filed and served personally as required by Section 11 Rule 13, of the Rules of Court.
Based on these grounds advanced by Mina, the RTC dismissed Peter’s money claim without prejudice. Was the RTC correct?
No. Non-payment of filing fees for a money claim against the estate is not one of the grounds for its dismissal. The trial court has jurisdiction to act on a money claim without payment of separate docket fees because anyway said fees constitute a lien on the judgment or the trial court may just order the payment of such fees within a reasonable time pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141.
The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleading. In this case, the whole probate proceeding was already initiated upon the filing of the petition for the allowance of the decedent’s will. A money claim against an estate is more akin to a motion for creditor’s claim to be recognized and taken into consideration in the proper disposition of the properties of the estate. As a motion, a money claim does not initiate new litigation, but merely bring a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion is filed. It is only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the decedent’s estate; more so if the claim is contingent since the claimant cannot even institute a separate action for a mere contingent claim. Hence Peter’s contingent money claim, not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against non-forum shopping.
With regard to the requirement for written explanation why the money claim was not filed and served personally, the rule gives the court the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed. But the exercise of discretion must necessarily consider the practicability of personal service for Section 11 itself begins with the clause “whenever practicable”. Whenever personal service is not practicable in the light of the circumstances of time, place and person, resort to other modes of service may be had and a written explanation why service was not done personally might even be superfluous.
In this case Peter holds office in
* * *
Reminder to all UST alumni: General homecoming on
* * *
E-mail at: [email protected]
- Latest
- Trending
