Lim vs CA Case Digest GR 124715 ; January 24, 2000 ; 323 SCRA 102

Lim vs CA Case Digest

 GR 124715 ; January 24, 2000 ; 323 SCRA 102

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Jurisdiction over matters of probate

Jurisdiction over matters of probate depends upon the gross value of the estate of the decedent (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980)

RTC:

Outside Metro Manila - Gross value of the estate exceeds One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000)

Metro Manila - Gross value exceeds Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000)

MTC:

Outside Metro Manila - does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) Metro Manila - does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000)

b) Authority of the probate court over issues of ownership

General Rule: Probate court may provisionally pass upon title to certain properties for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory. This ruling of the probate court is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title.

Reason: Regional Trial Court, acting as a probate court, exercises limited jurisdiction.

Exceptions:

1) The claimant and all other parties having legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the question to the probate court for adjudgment, or

2) The interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced

Land Titles

a) Collateral attack on Torrens Title proscribed

P.D. 1529 (The Property Registration Decree) proscribes collateral attack on Torrens Title.

b) Presumptive conclusiveness of title

- If a property covered by Torrens title is involved, the presumptive conclusiveness of such title should be given due weight.

- The holder of the title should be considered as the owner of the property in controversy until his title is nullified or modified in an appropriate ordinary action or in the absence of strong compelling evidence to the contrary.

Corporation Law

a) Corporation has its own legal personality

A corporation is clothed with personality separate and distinct from that of the persons composing it. It may not generally be held liable for that of the persons composing it. It may not be held liable for the personal indebtedness of its stockholders or those of the entities connected with it. A corporation by legal fiction and convenience is an entity shielded by a protective mantle and imbued by law with a character alien to the persons comprising it.

b) When piercing the corporate veil doctrine is applicable

1) Corporation is just but the alter ego of a person or of another corporation.

2) Where badges of fraud exist.

3) Where public convenience is defeated.

4) Where a wrong is sought to be justified thereby.

c) Test in determining the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction:

(1) Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own;

(2) Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiffs legal right; and

(3) The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of.

NOTE: The absence of any of these elements prevent "piercing the corporate veil".

Evidence

a) Affidavits are hearsay evidence

Reasons:

- Not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statements, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them.

- Adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants.

b) How to make an affidavit admissible as evidence

The affiant themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify on the affidavits.

FACTS:  Pastor Lim died intestate. Petitioner, Pastor Lim’s surviving spouse, filed a joint petition for the administration of the estate of Pastor Lim before the RTC. Private respondents corporations, whose properties were included in the inventory of the estate of Pastor Lim, filed a motion for the lifting of lis pendens and motion for exclusion of certain properties from the estate of the decedent. RTC, as probate court, granted these 2 motions. Petitioner filed a verified amended petition. RTC acting on petitioner's motion issued an order directing the Registry of Deeds to reinstate the annotation of lis pendens. Probate court also issued an order denying private respondents' motion for exclusion.

Private respondent filed a special civil action for certiorari before the CA questioning the orders of the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a probate court. CA ruled in favor of herein private respondents. Petitioner files this instant petition praying that SC affirm the orders issued by the probate court which were subsequently set aside by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE/S: WON the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity is applicable to be able to include in the probate proceedings the company formed by deceased Pastor Lim, which are the respondent corporation.

HELD: NO since a corporation is clothed with personality separate and distinct from that of the persons composing it. It may not generally be held liable for that of the persons composing it. It may not be held liable for the personal indebtedness of its stockholders or those of the entities connected with it.

A corporation is invested by law with a personality distinct and separate from its stockholders or members. In the same vein, a corporation by legal fiction and convenience is an entity shielded by protective mantle and imbued with by law with a character alien to the persons comprising it.

Nonetheless, the shield is not at all times invincible. The corporate mask may be lifted and the corporate veil may be pierced when a corporation is just but the alter ego of a person or of another corporation. Where badges of fraud exist, where public convenience is defeated; where a wrong is sought to be justified thereby, the corporate fiction or the notion of the legal entity should come to naught. (Piercing the Corporate Veil Doctrine)

Further, the test in determining the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is as follows: 1.) Control, not merely the majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time so separate mind, will or existence of its own; 2.) Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud on wrong to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, on dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiffs legal right; and 3.) The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of. The absence of any of these elements prevent “piercing the corporate veil.”

Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for disregarding the fiction of separate personalities. Moreover, to disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrong doing must be clearly and convincingly established, it cannot be presumed.

Furthermore, granting arguendo that the RTC in this case was not merely acting in a limited capacity as a probate court, petitioner nonetheless failed to adduce competent evidence that would have justified the court to impale the veil of corporate fiction. The reliance reposed by petitioner on the affidavits executed by Lim and Wenceslao is unavailing considering that the aforementioned documents possess no weighty probative value pursuant to the hearsay rule.

Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas Case Digest G.R. No. 186571 ; August 11, 2010

Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas Case Digest 

G.R. No. 186571 ; August 11, 2010

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Jurisdictional and procedural requirements before a judgment, authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil registry (Rule 108 of the Rules of Court)

- Verified petition must be filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located;

- Civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest must be made parties to the proceedings

- Time and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Conflict of Laws

a) Rule on recognition of a foreign divorce judgment

- Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws

b) How foreign divorce judgment is recognized in the Philippines

- Foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. (Republic v. Orbecido III, supra note 10 at 123 and Garcia v. Recio, supra note 17 at 448; see also Bayot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155635, November 7, 2008, 570 SCRA 472.)

            - Foreign judgment must be ALLEGED and PROVED

c) How to ALLEGE and PROVE foreign judgment (Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court)

Proof either by:

(1) official publications OR

(2) copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents.

If the copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these must be:

(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept AND

(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

d) Registration of the foreign divorce decree should be done with judicial recognition of the foreign judgment

Article 407 of the Civil Code requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences touching upon a person’s legal capacity and status. But while the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the law and the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto authorize the decree’s registration. The law should be read in relation with the requirement of a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect.

Persons and Family Relations

a) Second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code cam only be claimed by a Filipino citizen

The alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse

b) Two types of defective marriages recognized under the Family Code

- void marriages

- voidable marriages

c) Void and voidable marriages vs. Divorce

Void and voidable marriages - Dissolution of the lawful union is based on a cause existing before or at the time of the marriage

Divorce- Dissolution of the lawful union is based on a cause arising after the marriage

d) Philippines does not recognize absolute divorce; exception

GR: Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign country.

Exception: Second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code recognizes the dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.

e) Effect of 2nd par. of Article 26 of the Family Code

- Recognition of the foreign divorce decree

- Declare that the Filipino spouse is capacitated to contract another marriage if the court finds that the foreign divorce decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarry.

f) Intent for enactment of 2nd par. of Article 26 of the Family Code

"to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse."

FACTS: Petitioner Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization. He married a Filipina. He later filed a petition for divorce for his first wife since he discovered that she was having an affair. This was granted. Two years after the divorce, Gerbert found another Filipina to love. He desired to marry her. So he registered the Canadian divorce decree in the Civil Registry Office. But he was informed that despite the registration of the divorce decree the marriage between him and his first wife still subsists under Philippine law and for the divorce decree to be enforceable, it must first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court.

Petitioner then filed for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of marriage as dissolved with the RTC. The RTC denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner lacked locus standi. Thus, petitioner directly appeals to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE/S:

1) WON the 2nd paragraph of Art 26 of the FC extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree.

2) WON Civil Registry Office acted out of line in registering the foreign decree of divorce.

HELD:

1) NO. Only a Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy under the 2nd paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code because the substantive right it establishes is in favour of the Filipino spouse.  Hence, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the 2nd paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code.

However, the unavailability of the 2nd paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip the petitioner of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The petitioner, being a naturalized Canadian citizen now, is clothed by the presumptive evidence of the authenticity of foreign divorce decree with conformity to alien’s national law.

2) YES. Article 407 of the Civil Code requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences touching upon a person’s legal capacity and status. But while the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the law and the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto authorize the decree’s registration. The law should be read in relation with the requirement of a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect.

In the context of the present case, no judicial order as yet exists recognizing the foreign divorce decree. Hence, the Civil Registry acted out of line when it registered the foreign decree of divorce on the petitioner and respondent’s marriage certificate without judicial order recognizing the said decree.  The registration of the foreign divorce decree without the requisite judicial recognition is patently void and cannot produce any legal effect.

Onde vs. LCR Case Digest G.R. No. 197174 ; September 10, 2014 ; 734 SCRA 66

Onde vs. LCR Case Digest 

G.R. No. 197174 ; September 10, 2014 ; 734 SCRA 66

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) RA 9048, as amended by RA 10172, allows administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of first name

Section 15 of R.A. No. 9048, clerical or typographical errors on entries in a civil register can be corrected and changes of first name can be done by the concerned city civil registrar without need of a judicial order.

Effect on change of first name:

- Jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with administrative officers.

- Exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court

Effect on correction of clerical or typographical errors:

- The correction of clerical or typographical errors can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order.

- The law removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of clerical or typographical errors

b) Substantial correction requires adversarial proceedings (Rule 108 of the Rules of Court)

- Corrections of entries in the civil register including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, involve substantial alterations.

-  Substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceedings.

c) Parties to implead under Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court:

- Local civil registrar

- All persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the correction.

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a petition for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth before the RTC and named Office of the Local Civil Registrar. He prayed that the following entries on his birth certificate be corrected as follows:

Entry	From	To
1) Date and place of marriage of his parents	December 23, 1983 - Bicol	Not Married
2) First name of his mother	Tely	Matilde
3) His first name	Franc Ler	Francler

RTC dismissed the petition. Hence, this present petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE/S:

(1) WON the correction on the first name of petitioner and his mother can be done by the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048.

(2) WON the correcting of entry on petitioner’s birth certificate that his parents were married to "not married" is substantial in nature requiring adversarial proceedings,

HELD:

1) YES. Section 1 of R.A. No. 9048 provides that clerical or typographical errors on entries in a civil register can be corrected and changes of first name can be done by the concerned city civil registrar without need of a judicial order. R.A. No. 9048 provides that jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with administrative officers. Hence, the correction on the first name of petitioner and his mother can be done through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order.

2) YES. Corrections of entries in the civil register including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, involve substantial alterations. These substantial alterations can be corrected through appropriate adversary proceedings. Hence, correcting the entry on petitioner’s birth certificate that his parents were married to "not married" is a substantial correction requiring adversarial proceedings since it will affect his legitimacy. It will convert him from a legitimate child to an illegitimate one.

Silverio vs Republic Case Digest G.R. No. 174689 ; October 22, 2007 ; S3 & 7, RA 9048

Silverio vs Republic Case Digest 

G.R. No. 174689 ; October 22, 2007 ; S3 & 7, RA 9048

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Change of name is a privilege and not a right.

- Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes.

Article 376 provides - No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.

b) RA 9048 is the law that governs the change of first name

Section 1 of RA 9048. (Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname) – No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

- RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law) vest the power and authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned. Under the law, therefore jurisdiction over applications for change of the first name is now primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers.

- In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial.

c) Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname (Section 4, RA 9048 [Administrative Remedy]):

1. The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

2. The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or

3.The change will avoid confusion.

d) Entries that are correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code.

ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register.

ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:

(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name.

e) Meaning of "clerical or typographical error"

Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner.

f) Change of sex is a substantial change.

-  Under RA 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change.

g) "Correct" vs. "Change:

Correct - "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from"

Change - "to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute."

h) No law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment

- Change of sex grounded upon sex reassignment surgery is considered a substantial change which is not covered by Rule 108.

- No special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects.

i) Sex of a person is determined at birth

Birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of birth. Thus, the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant.

j) Determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth is immutable.

Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by error, is immutable.

FACTS: Petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio was born and registered as a male. He filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the RTC. He admitted that he is a male transsexual who underwent sex reassignment surgery. From the time he underwent such surgery, petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. He then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from "Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female."

RTC granted the petition. The Republic of the Philippines, thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the CA alleging that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration. CA ruled in favor of the OSG. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S:

1) WON petitioner is entitled to change his name in his birth certificate.

2) WON petitioner is entitled to change his sex in his birth certificate.

HELD:

1)  NO since a person’s first name cannot be changed on the ground of sex reassignment.  RA 9048 is the law that governs the change of first name. SECTION 4 of the said law provides the Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. The grounds are as follows: (1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or (3) The change will avoid confusion. As such, RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment.  

Furthermore, before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. But the petitioner in the present case failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name.

2) NO since no law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment. The entries correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Article 408 of the Civil Code. These are entries in the civil register with regard to: (1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name. In relation to the present case, sex reassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 408. Neither is it recognized nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly. Hence it cannot be allowed even under Rules 108.

Article 413 of the Civil Code provides that “All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be governed by special laws”. But there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to change his sex in his birth certificate on the ground of sex reassignment surgery.

Hilado vs Court of Appeals Case Digest GR No. 164108 ; May 8, 2009

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

Section 1 of Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

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.

e) Claims which must be filed under the notice to creditors required under Rule 86

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.

f) How Claims Based on Civil Actions For Tort or Quasi-delict are Brought Against the estate.

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.