Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4053. March 27, 1909. ]

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSE MA. CEBALLOS, deceased. SERAFIN CANO URQUISA, Petitioner-Appellant.

Manly & McMahon, for Appellant.

SYLLABUS


1. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES’ EXTENSIONS OF TERM FOR PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS. — Held, That, the commissioners in this case having been lawfully appointed to consider claims against the estate of the deceased, and the period having been once extended by the court, due notice of which was given, the petition for a renewal of the commission or a further extension of time for the consideration of claims, was properly denied. (Secs. 687, 689, 690, and 695, Code of Civil Procedure.)


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J.:


On the 28th day of November, 1906, the said Serafin Cano Urquiza presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of the province of Albay, asking that the committee appointed to appraise the estate of the said deceased, Jose Ma. Ceballos y Muñoz, and to allow claims against the said estate, be renewed, or that anew commission be appointed, in order that the said petitioner might present certain claims against the said estate, at the same time making a part of said petition an itemized statement of the claims which he held against the said estate.

On the 11th day of February, 1907, Angel Ortiz, claiming to be interested in the administration of the property of said estate, appeared in court and objected to the renewing of the commission as well as to the appointment of a new commission for the purpose of considering claims against the said estate.

On the 27th day of February, 1907, the court denied said petition in the words following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"According to these records, the court, on the 12th day of May, 1903, appointed commissioners to hear the claims against this estate, and on the 2d day of October, 1905, the court extended for two months more the authority given to the commissioners; this extension was ordered on account of the fact that the report of the commissioners had not been made in due form; and from the term of said two months up to the 18th of December, 1906, the date of the filing of this petition, more than six months have elapsed, notwithstanding the fact that the claim of Sr. Urquiza appears to be just; yet, under the provisions of section 695 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this court has no authority to again renew the service of said commission."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this order of the court the petitioner appealed, and made the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The court erred in holding that it has no authority to renew the appointment of the committee on claims.

"2. The court erred in denying the petition of the Appellant.

"3. The court erred and in considering the claim of the appellant as having prescribed."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the record brought to this court it appears that the lower court having jurisdiction in the settlement of the estate of the said Jose Ma. Ceballos y Muñoz, on the 12th day of May, 1903, appointed the commissioners provided for by the law to appraise the said estate and to consider claims presented against it, and notice was given of the appointment of said commission and of the time and place when said commission would meet and consider claims against the said estate. On the 18th day of May, 1905, the said commissioners made a report to the lower court relating to the appraisement of the property of said estate and to the claims that had been presented.

On the 2d day of October, 1905, and by virtue of the provisions of sections 689 and 690 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, the lower court extended the time for two months within which the said commissioners might consider further claims against said estate. The reason given for said extension, as was said by the lower court, was that the said report had not been made in due form. None of this extension was duly published in a newspaper of general circulation, known as "Libertas," and in the issues of said paper, for three consecutive weeks, upon the 8th, and 14th days of November, 1905. Upon the 25th day of January, 1906, said commission rendered its final account to the court, which was accepted and approved.

With reference to the first above assignment of error section 689 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions provides that the court shall allow such time as the circumstances of the case require for the creditors to present their claims to the committee for examination and allowance which time in the first instance shall not exceed twelve months, nor shall be less than six months, and which time shall be communicated to the said commission. Said section further provides that the time allowed in the first instance for the presentation of claims, etc., may be extended, as the circumstance may require, but that such time shall not be extended so that the whole time allowed for the presentation of claims, etc., shall exceed eighteen months.

Section 690 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions provides for a further extension of time upon the application of a creditor who has failed to present his claim for a period of six months. Section 690 further provides that if the committee fails to give the notice required by law, and an application is made by a creditor after the final settlement of the estate, the court may, for good cause shown, and on such terms as are equitable, renew the commission and allow further time, not exceeding one month for the committee to grant such claim. The appellant claims here that the notice which was published as above indicated in the
Top of Page