Hilado vs Court of Appeals Case Digest
GR No. 164108 ; May 8, 2009
PRINCIPLE/S:
Special Proceedings
a) Who may be intervene in a Settlement
of Estates
- Has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the
success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so
situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of
property in the custody of the court.
- Must be actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent and
expectant. (Batama Farmers’ Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. vs.
Hon. Rosal., 149 Phil. 514, 519 (1971).
b) Basis of the meaning of Intervenor in
a Special Proceeding
RULE 19 – Intervention - Section 1.
Who may intervene. — A person who has a legal interest in the matter in
litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against
both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may,
with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall
consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the
intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. (2[a],
[b]a, R12)
c) Why Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure is applicable in a Special Proceeding?
Rule 72 - Section 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.
- Section 2,
Rule 72 provides that “[i]n the absence of special provisions, the rules
provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable to
special proceedings.” We can readily conclude that notwithstanding Section 2 of
Rule 72, intervention as set forth under Rule 19 does not extend to creditors
of a decedent whose credit is based on a contingent claim. The definition of
“intervention” under Rule 19 simply does not accommodate contingent claims.
d) Instances
an “interested person”
may participate in the testate or intestate proceedings.
(1) Section 1, Rule 79 - recognizes the right of
"any person interested" to oppose the issuance of letters
testamentary and to file a petition for administration;"
(2) Section 3, Rule 79, - mandates
the giving of notice of hearing on the petition for letters of administration
to the known heirs, creditors, and "to any other persons believed to have
interest in the estate;"
(3) Section 1, Rule 76, which allows
a "person interested in the estate" to petition for the allowance of
a will;
(4) Section 6 of Rule 87 - allows an
individual interested in the estate of the deceased "to complain to the
court of the concealment, embezzlement, or conveyance of any asset of the
decedent, or of evidence of the decedent’s title or interest therein;"
(5) Section 10 of Rule 85 - requires
notice of the time and
place of the examination and allowance of the Administrator’s account "to
persons interested;"
(6) Section
7(b) of Rule 89 - requires the court to give notice "to the persons
interested" before it may hear and grant a petition seeking the
disposition or encumbrance of the properties of the estate; and
(7) Section
1, Rule 90 - allows "any person interested in the estate" to petition
for an order for the distribution of the residue of the estate of the decedent,
after all obligations are either satisfied or provided for.
RULE 86 - Claims
Against Estate - Section 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not
filed, barred; exceptions. — All claims for money against the decent,
arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or
contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expense for the last sickness
of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decent, must be filed
within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever,
except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that the
executor or administrator may bring against the claimants. Where an executor or
administrator commences an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by
the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he
has against the decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court
as herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in such
action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount
so determined shall be considered the true balance against the estate, as
though the claim had been presented directly before the court in the
administration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be approved
at their present value.
- Claims based on contract,
whether express or implied, even if contingent can be filed under the notice to
creditors required under Rule 86.
- Civil actions for tort or
quasi-delict do not fall within the class of claims to be filed under the
notice to creditors required under Rule 86. (Aguas v. Llemos, et al.,
116 Phil. 112 (1962); Leung Ben v. O'Brien, 38 Phil. 182, 189-194 (1918)
Reason: These actions, being as they
are civil, survive the death of the decedent and may be commenced against the
administrator pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87.
RULE 87- Actions By and
Against Executors and Administrators - Section 1. Actions which may and which may not be
brought against executor or administrator. — No action upon a claim for the
recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the
executor or administrator; but to recover real or personal property, or an
interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to
recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal, may be
commenced against him.
- Claims based
on Civil actions for tort
or quasi-delict are brought against the estate through Sec. 1 of Rule 87
g) A
person who is not considered an “interested person” cannot intervene in an
intestate proceeding; Exceptions.
General
Rule: A person who is not considered an “interested person” cannot intervene in
an intestate proceeding.
Exception: Such
persons not deemed “interested persons” may be allowed to seek certain prayers or reliefs from
the intestate court not explicitly provided for under the Rules, if the prayer
or relief sought is necessary to protect their interest in the estate, and there is no other modality
under the Rules by which such interests can be protected.
h) Effect of the Exception to the General
Rule
Claimants will have the right to be furnished with
copies of all processes and orders issued in connection with the intestate
proceedings, as well as the pleadings filed by
the administrator of the estate.
Reasons: They are in fact
"interested persons" under Rule 135, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioners
would be duly alerted of
the developments in the intestate proceedings and this would allow them to pursue the
appropriate remedies should their interests be compromised.
RULE 135 - Powers and Duties of Courts and
Judicial Officers - Sec 2. Publicity of
proceedings and records. — The sitting of every court of justice shall be
public, but any court may, in its discretion, exclude the public when the
evidence to be adduced is of such nature as to require their exclusion in the
interest of morality or decency. The records of every court of justice shall be
public records and shall be available for the inspection of any interested
person, at all proper business hours, under the supervision of the clerk having
custody of such records, unless the court shall, in any special case, have
forbidden their publicity, in the interest of morality or decency.
i) Instances when notice has to be
given to interested parties under Rule 135 of the
Rules of Court
(1) Sec. 10, Rule 85 - time
and place of examining and allowing the account of the executor or
administrator;
(2) Sec. 7(b) of Rule 89 - concerning
the petition to authorize the executor or administrator to sell personal
estate, or to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber real estates; and;
(3) Sec. 1, Rule 90 -
regarding the hearing for the application for an order for distribution of the
estate residue. After all, even the administratrix has acknowledged in her
submitted inventory, the existence of the pending cases filed by the petitioners.
j) Proper remedy for complaints against the general
competence of the administrator,
RULE 82 - Section 2.
Court may be remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator.
Proceeding upon death, resignation, or removal. — If an executor or
administrator neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to
law, or to perform an order or judgment of the court, or a duty expressly
provided by these rules, or absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise incapable
or insuitable to discharge the trust, the court may remove him, or in its
discretion, may permit him to resign. When an executor or administrator dies,
resign, or is removed the remaining executor or administrator may administer
the the trust alone, unless the court grants letters to someone to act with
him. If there is no remaining executor or administrator, administration may be
to any suitable person.
- It is
the proper remedy
to seek the removal of the
administrator.
- A creditor, even a contingent one, would have the personality to seek
such relief.
Reason why a creditor who has contingent claim
on the estate can seek such remedy:
The interest of the creditor in the estate
relates to the preservation of sufficient assets to answer for the debt, and
the general competence or good faith of the administrator is necessary to
fulfill such purpose
FACTS: Well-known sugar
magnate Benedicto died intestate. He was survived by his wife and only daughter. At the time of his death, there
were two pending civil cases against Benedicto involving the petitioners.
Benedicto’s wife filed with the RTC a petition for the issuance of
letters of administration in her favor. RTC issued an order appointing her as administrator of the estate of
her deceased husband and issuing letters of administration in her favor.
Petitioners
filed with the RTC a Manifestation/Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela praying that
they be furnished with copies of all processes and orders pertaining to the
intestate proceedings.
Private respondent opposed
disputing that the
petitioners do not have the legal personality to do so.
RTC and CA denied such manifestation/motion.
CA dismissed the petition
citing that the claims of
petitioners against the decedent were contingent or expectant, as these were
still pending litigation in separate proceedings before other courts. Hence, this present petition.
ISSUE/S:
1) WON the petitioners can intervene in the intestate proceedings of Roberto Benedicto?
2) WON the claims of petitioners can be filed under the notice to
creditors required under Rule 86?
3) WON petitioners can still intervene in any
matter in the intestate proceeding even if they are not considered “interested
persons” who can intervene in the case?
HELD:
1) NO. Section 1 of Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
requires that an intervenor
"has a legal interest
in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an
interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court.
Case law has consistently
held that the legal interest required of an intervenor "must be actual and
material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent and expectant.”
The claims of petitioners against the
decedent are contingent or expectant, as these were still pending litigation in
separate proceedings before other courts. Hence petitioners cannot to intervene in
the intestate proceedings.
2) NO. The claims that can be filed under RULE
86 are enumerated under Section 5 of the said rule. Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict is not
among those enumerated. Hence petitioner’s claims
does not
fall within the class of claims to be filed under the notice to creditors
required under Rule 86.
These actions, being as
they are civil, survive the death of the decedent and may be commenced against
the administrator pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87. Hence, the merits of petitioners’ claims
against Benedicto are to be settled in the civil cases where they were raised,
and not in the intestate proceedings.
3) YES. The petitioners have no general right to intervene. But
they may be allowed to seek certain prayers or reliefs from the intestate court
not explicitly provided for under the Rules, if the prayer or relief sought is
necessary to protect their interest in the estate, and there is no other modality
under the Rules by which such interests can be protected. Hence
petitioners are granted the right to be furnished with copies of all processes and orders issued
in connection with the intestate proceedings, as well as the pleadings
filed by the administrator of the estate. The reasons for this is that they are in fact
"interested persons" under Rule 135, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment