01.a Santos vs Manarang - G.R. No. 8235. March 19, 1914

8/9/2019 01.a Santos vs Manarang - G.R. No. 8235. March 19, 1914

1/33

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 8235. March 19, 1914.]

ISIDORO SANTOS, pa!"#!$$%app&a"#, '(. )EANDRA

MANARANG, a*+!"!(#ra#r!, *&$&"*a"#%app&&&.

W. A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for appellant.

Ramon Salinas for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. EE!UT"RS A#$ A$%&STRAT"RS' ALL"WA#!E A#$

(AY%E#T ") !LA&%S' T&%E )"R (RESE#TAT&"#. * &f the

propert+ of the estate has ,een properl+ in-entoried the committee on

claims reg/larl+ appointed the p/,lication of the notice re0/ired ,+ la

d/l+ made and there has ,een no fra/d in the proceedings claims orde,ts hich the la re0/ires shall ,e presented to the committee on

claims m/st ,e presented to it ithin the limitation of time pro-ided in

section 234 5!ode !i-. (roc.6 or the+ ill ,e ,arred.

7. &$.' &$.' &$.' !"#TRARY (R"8&S&"#S THE W&LL. *

$irections in the testator9s ill that s/ch claims and de,ts or an+ of

them shall ,e settled in some other manner as -oid as opposed to p/,lic

polic+ at least here there are heirs ,+ force of la.

:. &$.' &$.' A!T&"# A;AST A$%&STRAT"R. * #o actioncan ,e instit/ted directl+ against the administrator of the estate for the

collection of claims and de,ts hich the committee on claims is directed

to pass /pon.


2/33

TRE#T p

$on L/cas de "campo died on #o-em,er 14 13>2 possessed of certain

real and personal propert+ hich ,+ his last ill and testament dated

/l+ 72 13>2 he left to his three children. The fo/rth cla/se of this ill

reads as follosC& also declare that & ha-e contracted the de,ts detailed ,elo and it is

m+ desire that the+ ,e religio/sl+ paid ,+ m+ ife and eDec/tors in the

form and at the time agreed /pon ith m+ creditors.C

Among the de,ts mentioned in the list referred to are to in fa-or of the

plaintiff &sidro Santos' one d/e on April 1 for (?>>> and

-ario/s others descri,ed as falling d/e at different dates 5the dates are

not gi-en6 amo/nting to the s/m of (7


3/33

claims alloed against the estate ,+ the committee ere ritten off in

accordance ith its report. This is shon -er+ clearl+ from the co/rt9s

order of A/g/st 1 1317 in hich the acco/nt of the administratriD as

appro-ed after red/cing the final pa+ments on some of the claims

against the estate to agree ith the amo/nts alloed ,+ the committee. &tis f/rther alleged that at the time this petition as presented the

administration proceedings had not ,een terminated. This is correct.

&n his petitions of /l+ 13 as@ing that the committee ,e

recon-ened to consider his claims plaintiff states that his fail/re to

present the said claims the committee as d/e to his ,elief that it as

/nnecessar+ to do so ,eca/se of the fact that the testator in his ill

eDpressl+ recogni=ed them and directed that the+ sho/ld ,e paid. The

inference is that had plaintiff9s claims not ,een mentioned in the ill heo/ld ha-e presented them to the committee as a matter of co/rse' that

plaintiff as led to ,elie-e ,+ this eDpress mention of his claims in the

ill that it o/ld ,e /nnecessar+ to present them to the committee' and

that he did not ,ecome aare of the necessit+ of presenting them to the

committee /ntil after the committee had made its final report.

Under these facts and circ/mstances did the co/rt err in ref/sing to

recon-ene the committee for the p/rpose of considering plaintiff9s

claimsF The first step toard the sol/tion of this 0/estion is to determinehether plaintiff9s claims ere s/ch as a committee appointed to hear

claims against an estate is ,+ la a/thori=ed to pass /pon. Unless it

as s/ch a claim plaintiff9s arg/ment has no fo/ndation. Section 242

empoers the committee to tr+ and decide claims hich s/r-i-e against

eDec/tors and administrators e-en tho/gh the+ ,e demanda,le at a

f/t/re da+ CeDcept claims for the possession of or title to real estate.C

Section >> pro-ides that all actions commenced against the deceased

person for the reco-er+ of mone+ de,t or damages pending at the time

the committee is appointed shall ,e discontin/ed and the claimsem,raced ithin s/ch actions presented to the committee. Section >:

pro-ides that actions to reco-er title to or possession of real propert+

actions to reco-er damages for inG/r+ to person or propert+ real or

personal and actions to reco-er the possession of specified articles of

personal propert+ shall s/r-i-e and ma+ ,e commenced and prosec/ted


4/33

against the eDec/tor or administrator' C,/t all other actions commenced

against the deceased ,efore his death shall ,e discontin/ed and the

claims therein in-ol-ed presented ,efore the committee as herein

pro-ided.C Section >4 pro-ides that a claim sec/red ,+ a mortgage or

other collateral sec/rit+ ma+ ,e a,andoned and the claim prosec/ted,efore the committee or the mortgage ma+ ,e foreclosed or the sec/rit+

,e relied /pon and in the e-ent of a deficienc+ G/dgment the creditor

ma+ after the sale of the mortgage or /pon the ins/fficienc+ of the

sec/rit+ pro-e s/ch deficienc+ ,efore the committee on claims. There

are also certain pro-isions in section


5/33

,eing afterards called /pon to respond in actions for claims hich

/nder the ordinar+ stat/te of limitations ha-e not +et prescri,ed.

CThe o,Gect of the la in fiDing a definite period ithin hich claims

m/st ,e presented is to ins/re the speed+ settling of the affairs of a

deceased person and the earl+ deli-er+ of the propert+ of the estate intothe hands of the persons entitled to recei-e it.C 5Estate of $e $ios 7 hich reads as follos

C"n application of a creditor ho has failed to present his claim if made

ithin siD months after the time pre-io/sl+ limited or if a committee

fails to gi-e the notice re0/ired ,+ this chapter and s/ch application is

made ,efore the final settlement of the estate the co/rt ma+ for ca/se

shon and on s/ch f/rther time not eDceeding one month for the

committee to eDamine s/ch claim in hich case it shall personall+

notif+ the parties of the time and place of hearing and as soon as ma+ ,ema@e the ret/rn of their doings to the co/rt.C

&f the committee fails to gi-e the notice re0/ired that is a s/fficient

ca/se for recon-ening it for f/rther consideration of claims hich ma+

not ha-e ,een presented ,efore its final report as s/,mitted to the

co/rt. B/t as stated a,o-e this is not the case made ,+ the plaintiff as

the committee did gi-e the notice re0/ired ,+ la. Where the proper

notice has ,een gi-en the right to ha-e the committee recalled for the

consideration of a ,elated claim appears to rest first /pon the condition

that it is presented ithin siD months after the time pre-io/sl+ limitedfor the presentation of claims. &n the present case the time pre-io/sl+

limited as siD months from /l+ 7: 13>. This alloed the plaintiff

/ntil an/ar+ 7: 13>4 to present his claims to the committee. An

eDtension of this time /nder section 23> rested in the discretion of the

co/rt. 5Estate of $e $ios s/pra.6 &n other ords the co/rt co/ld eDtend


6/33

this time and recall the committee for a consideration of the plaintiff9s

claims against the estate if G/stice re0/ired it at an+ time ithin the siD

months after an/ar+ 7: 13>4 or /ntil /l+ 7: 13>4. (laintiff9s petition

as not presented /ntil /l+ 3. The ,ar of the stat/te of nonclaims

is as concl/si-e /nder these circ/mstances as the ,ar of the ordinar+stat/te of limitations o/ld ,e. &t is generall+ held that claims are not

,arred as to propert+ not incl/ded in the in-entor+. 5Wa/ghop -s.

Bartlett 12? &ll. 17 herein he

as@s that the administratriD ,e compelled to pa+ o-er to him the amo/nts

mentioned in the ill as de,ts d/e him. We concede all that is implied in

the maDim dicat testor et erit leD. B/t the la imposes certain

restrictions /pon the testator not onl+ as to the disposition of his estate

,/t also as to the manner in hich he ma+ ma@e s/ch disposition. As

stated in Rood on Wills sec.


7/33

of la and imperati-e re0/irements of p/,lic polic+. 5(age on Wills sec.


8/33

of its correctnessF And if not hat a/thorit+ has he to -ise the claimF

Section >2 of the !ode of !i-il (roced/re pro-ides that a eDec/tor

ma+ ith the appro-al of the co/rt compo/nd ith a de,tor of deceased

for a de,t d/e the estate. B/t he is nohere permitted or directed to deal

ith a creditor of the estate. "n the contrar+ he is the ad-ocate of theestate ,efore an impartial committee ith 0/asiG/dicial poer to

determine the amo/nt of the claims against the estate and in certain

cases to e0/ita,l+ adG/st the amo/nts d/e. The administrator

representing the de,tor estate and the creditor appear ,efore this ,od+

as parties litigant and if either is dissatisfied ith its decision an appeal

to the co/rt is their remed+. To allo the administrator to eDamine and

appro-e a claim against the estate o/ld p/t him in the d/al role of a

claimant and G/dge. The la in this G/risdiction has ,een so framed thatthis ma+ not occ/r. The most important restriction in this G/risdiction

on the disposition of propert+ ,+ ill are those pro-isions of the !i-il

!ode pro-iding for the preser-ation of the legal portions d/e to heirs ,+

force of la and eDpressl+ recogni=ed and contin/ed in force ,+

sections 21


9/33

of these heirs ,+ force of la pass immediatel+ /pon the death of the

testator. 5Art. 2? !i-il !ode. 6 The state inter-enes and g/arantees

their rights ,+ man+ stringent pro-isions of la to the eDtent mentioned

in article 414 of the !i-il !ode. Ha-ing /nderta@en the responsi,ilit+ to

deli-er the legal portion of the net assets of the estate to the heirs ,+force of la it is idle to tal@ of s/,stit/ting for the proced/re pro-ided

,+ la for determining the legal portion some other proced/re pro-ided

in the ill of the testator. The state cannot afford to allo the

performance of its o,ligations to ,e directed ,+ the ill of an indi-id/al.

There is ,/t one instance in hich the settlement of the estate according

to the pro,ate proced/re pro-ided in the !ode of !i-il (roced/re ma+ ,e

dispensed ith and it applies onl+ to intestate estates. 5Sec. ?32 !ode

!i-. (roc.6 A partial eDemption from the laf/l proced/re is alsocontained in section 2


10/33

claims sho/ld ,e dispensed ith it m/st ,e remem,ered that the testator

@nos that the eDec/tion of his ill in no a+ affects his control o-er

his propert+. The dates of his ill and of his death ma+ ,e separated ,+ a

period of time more or less apprecia,le. &n the meantime as the testator

ell @nos he ma+ ac0/ire or dispose or propert+ pa+ or ass/meadditional de,ts etc. &n the a,sence of an+thing to the contrar+ it is onl+

proper to pres/me that the testator in his ill is treating of his estate at

the time and in the condition it is in at death. Especiall+ is this tr/e of his

de,ts. $e,ts ma+ accr/e and ,e paid in hole or in part ,eteen the

time ill is made and the death of the testator. To allo a de,t

mentioned in the ill in the amo/nt eDpressed therein on the gro/nd that

s/ch as the desire of the testator hen in fact the de,t had ,een

holl+ or partl+ paid o/ld ,e not onl+ /nG/st to the resid/ar+ heirs,/t a reflection /pon the good sense of the testator himself. Ta@en the

present case for eDample. &t o/ld ,e a,s/rd to sa+ that the testator

@ne hat the amo/nt of his G/st de,ts o/ld ,e at a f/t/re and

/ncertain date. A mere comparison of the list of creditors of the testator

and the amo/nts d/e them as descri,ed in his ill ith the same list and

the amo/nts alloed ,+ the committee on claims shos that the testator

has creditors at the time of his death not mentioned in the ill at all. &n

other instances the amo/nts d/e these creditors ere either greater orless than the amo/nts mentioned as d/e them in the ill. &n fact of those

de,ts listed in the ill not a single one as alloed ,+ the committee in

the amo/nt named in the ill. This sho that the testator either failed to

list in his ill all his creditors and that as to those he did incl/de he set

don an erroneo/s amo/nt opposite their names' or else hich is the

onl+ reasona,le -ie of the matter he o-erloo@ed some de,ts or

contracted ne ones after the ill as made and that as to others he did

incl/de he made partial pa+ments on some and inc/rred additional

inde,tedness as to others.While the testator eDpresses the desire that his de,ts ,e paid he also

eDpressl+ lea-es the resid/e of his estate in e0/al parts to his children.

&t is to ,e pres/med that he desired to o-erpa+ some of his creditors

notithstanding his eDpress instr/ctions that his on children sho/ld

enGo+ the net assets of his estate after the de,ts ere paidF Again is the


11/33

net statement of the amo/nt d/e some creditors and the commission

altogether of some of his other creditors compati,le ith his honora,le

and commenda,le desire so clearl+ eDpressed in his ill that all his

de,ts ,e p/nct/all+ paidF We cannot concei-e that s/ch conflicting ideas

ere present in the testator9s mind hen he made his ill.Again s/ppose the testator erroneo/sl+ charged himself ith a de,t

hich he as /nder no legal or e-en moral o,ligation to pa+. The

present case s/ggests if it does not act/all+ present s/ch a state of

affairs. Among the assets of the estate mentioned in the ill is a parcel

of land -al/ed at (2?>>' hile in the in-entor+ of the administratriD the

right to rep/rchase this land from one &sidoro Santos is listed as an asset.

!o/nsel for the administratriD alleges that he is prepared to pro-e that

this is the identical plaintiff in the case at ,ar' that the testatorerroneo/sl+ claimed the fee of this land in his last ill and stated Santos9

rights in the same as a mere de,t d/e him of ( ?>>>' that in realit+ the

onl+ asset of the testator in regard to this land as the -al/e of the right

to rep/rchase hile the onership of the land s/,Gect onl+ to that right

of redemption ,elonged to Santos' that the right to rep/rchase this land

eDpired in 13> after the testator9s death. Ass/ming itho/t in the least

asserting that s/ch are the /nderl+ing facts of this case the /nG/st

conse0/ences of holding that a de,t eDpressl+ mentioned in the ill ma+,e reco-ered itho/t ,eing presented to the committee on claims is at

once apparent. &n this s/pposed case plaintiff needed onl+ ait /ntil the

time for redemption of the land had eDpired hen he o/ld ha-e

ac0/ired an a,sol/te title to the land and co/ld also ha-e eDacted

redemption price. Upon s/ch a state of facts the one item of (?>>>

o/ld ,e a mere fictitio/s de,t and as the total net -al/e of the estate

as less than (1?>>> the legal portion of the testator9s children o/ld

,e cons/med in part in the pa+ment of this item. S/ch a case cannot

occ/r if the prescri,ed proced/re is folloed of re0/iring that s/chclaims ,e -ised ,+ the committee on claims.

CThe direction in the ill for the eDec/tor pa+ all G/st de,ts does not

mean that he shall pa+ them itho/t pro,ate. There is nothing in the ill

to indicate that the testator intended that his estate sho/ld ,e

administered in an+ other than the reg/lar a+ /nder the stat/te hich


12/33

re0/ires 9all demands against the estates of deceased persons9 9all s/ch

demands as ma+ ,e eDhi,ited9 etc. The stat/te pro-ides the -er+ means

for ascertaining hether the claims against the estate are G/st de,ts.C

5Ka/fman -s. Redine 3 Ar@. ?


13/33

eDting/ished in a laf/l manner. 5Art. 11?2 id.6 $e,ts are demanda,le

and m/st ,e paid in legal tender. Legacies ma+ and often do consist of

specific articles of personal propert+ and m/st ,e satisfied accordingl+.

&n order to collect as a legac+ the s/m mentioned in the ill as d/e him

the plaintiff m/st sho that it is in fact a legac+ and not a de,t. As he hasalread+ attempted to sho that this s/m represents a de,t it is an

anomal+ to /rge no it is a legac+.

Was it the intention of the testator to lea-e the plaintiff a legac+ of

(


14/33

sometime ,efore some tri,/nal to determine the correctness of the de,ts

recogni=ed in the ills of deceased persons. This hearing in the first

instance can not ,e had ,efore the co/rt ,eca/se the la does not

a/thori=ed it. S/ch de,tors m/st present their claims to the committee

otherise their claims ill ,e fore-er ,arred.)or the foregoing reasons the orders appealed from are affirmed ith

costs against the appellant.

Torres !arson and Ara/llo . conc/r.

Separate "pinions

%"RELA#$ . dissenting

The decision of the co/rt in this case prod/ces in m+ h/m,le opinion as

serio/s miscarriage of G/stice. &t ca/ses the appellant to lose more than

(>>> a de,t against the respondent estate hich de,t ,/t a femonths ,efore his death as specificall+ recogni=ed ,+ the testator in

his ill as a de,t d/e and oing to petitioner and hich he in said ill

ordered and directed his eDec/tor to pa+ Creligio/sl+.C

&f & co/ld find G/stification for s/ch a decision either in the proceedings

as the+ are /nfolded ,+ the record or in the la as laid don in the !ode

of !i-il (roced/re & o/ld of co/rse ac0/iesce. )ar from finding s/ch

G/stification & am met so far as m+ G/dgment can discern ith facts of

record hich demonstrate concl/si-el+ that the decision is erroneo/s infact.

The opinion see@s to demonstrate that a creditor hose claim is

recogni=ed ,+ the highest possi,le a/thorit+ the de,tor himself in the

most solemn instr/ment @non to the la his last ill and testament as

legal G/st and -alid m/st lose that claim ,eca/se the -alidit+ thereof has

not ,een esta,lished ,+ a committee. And this is spite of the fact that

/pon the record of the case no one interested in the estate disp/te the

claim or challenges its -alidit+. Ta@e this proposition in connection ith

the fact that the committee to hear claims has not ,een discharged thatthe estate had not ,een finall+ closed ,/t is still pending settlement and

that therefore there eDists not a single reason in e0/it+ or G/stice h+

the claimant sho/ld not ,e permitted to present his claim if that is

necessar+ and e ha-e ,efore /s a sit/ation hich indicates ho far the

decision has gone.


15/33

&t sho/ld ,e caref/ll+ o,ser-ed that the petitioner &sidoro Santos as

defeated in this litigation /pon the gro/nd and the sole gro/nd that he

did not present his claim to the committee in p/rs/ance of a notice to

creditors p/,lished /nder an order dated /l+ 7: 13> and that he

therefore lost the right to enforce the claim' that the notice ha-ing ,eenp/,lished from /l+ 7? 13> to A/g/st 12 13> petitioner9s

application on /l+ 13 for the eDtension of time for the

presentation of claims to the old committee or the appointment of a ne

committee for that p/rpose as too late and as properl+ denied and

that his motion made #o-em,er 71 13>3 pra+ing that the eDec/tor ,e

compelled to carr+ o/t the ishes of the testator and pa+ the claim as

also properl+ denied.

&n m+ G/dgment the decision is erroneo/s from hate-er point -ieed1. E-en if it ,e ass/med that the notice to creditors sho/ld ha-e ,een

p/,lished in accordance ith the order of /l+ 7: 13> the record is

entirel+ lac@ing in legal e-idence to esta,lish the p/,lication hich the

la re0/ires /nder that order. That ,eing so the claim is not ,arred.

7. & contend and the record shos that the notice sho/ld not ha-e

,een p/,lished in accordance ith the order of /l+ 7: 13> ,/t in

p/rs/ance of the order of an/ar+ 4 13>4 hich as an order for a ne

p/,lication and ,eing a later order necessaril+ -acated and ann/lledthe order of /l+ 7: 13> and all proceedings there/nder relati-e to the

matters incl/ded in said order of an/ar+ 4 13>4' that p/,lication as

concededl+ ne-er made /nder and in p/rs/ance of that order and that

for that reason the petitioner9s claim is not ,arred.

:. The claim as not one that m/st ,e s/,mitted to a committee

,eing recogni=ed as a legal and -alid de,t ,+ the ill and the testator

ha-ing ordered his eDec/tor to pa+ it. The motion made to re0/ire the

eDec/tor to pa+ the claim sho/ld ha-e ,een heard ,+ the co/rt.

The facts of this case as shon ,+ the record are$on L/cas de "campo made a ill /l+ 72 13>2. He died #o-em,er

14 13>2. The ill specificall+ named &sidoro Santos the petitioner a

creditor of the testator set o/t the specific amo/nt d/e him named an

eDec/tor and directed him to pa+ the claim Creligio/sl+.C


16/33

The ill as pro,ated /l+ 1? 13> and Leandra %anarang the ido

appointed temporar+ administratriD. Her administration as terminated

on /l+ 7: 13> and !osme #a-al the person named in the ill as

eDec/tor as on that date d/l+ appointed eDec/tor as on that date

d/l+ appointed eDec/tor. "n the same da+ (edro A,ad Santos and%arcos Tanc/aco ere named the committee of appraisal and to hear

claims presented against the estate the co/rt ma@ing the folloing

order

CThere ha-ing ,een heard the petition presented ,+ SeIor !osme #a-al

pra+ing that he ,e appointed eDec/tor of the a,o-e named estate as

pro-ided in the ill of the deceased L/cas de "campo' and also pra+ing

the appointment of a committee of appraisal consisting of SeIores (edro

A,ad Santos and %arcos Tanc/acoC&t is ordered that the said !osme #a-al ma+ ,e and he here,+ is

appointment eDec/tor of the ill of L/cas de "campo deceased the

cler@ ,eing a/thori=ed to iss/e in fa-or of said !osme #a-al letters

testamentar+ the petitioner ,eing first re0/ired to ta@e the oath

prescri,ed ,+ la and to file a ,ond in the s/m of (?>> (hilippine

c/rrenc+ ith to s/reties satisfactor+ to the co/rt.

C&t is also ordered that the special letters of administration iss/ed

temporaril+ in fa-or of the ido of the deceased Leandra %anarangremain itho/t effect from this da+.

C&t is f/rther ordered that SeIores (edro A,ad Santos and %arcos

Tanc/aco ,e and the+ there,+ are appointed the committee of appraisal

and claims of this estate.C

"n the 74th of Septem,er 13> #a-al as remo-ed from office and

Leandra %anarang named in his place. "n $ecem,er : same +ear

(edro A,ad Santos resigned from the committee to ,ecome the attorne+

for the estate and $onato &t/rralde as appointed in his stead.

)olloing these changes ,oth in the office of eDec/tor and in that of thecommittee on an/ar+ 4 13>4 the co/rt made an order hich in itself

is in m+ G/dgment a complete ref/tation of the decision in this case and

demonstrates that a contrar+ G/dgment sho/ld ha-e ,een rendered. That

order dated as & ha-e said on an/ar+ 4 13>4 and prom/lgated on that

da+ reads as follos


17/33

CWhereas the Hon. /lio Llorente in decree dated $ecem,er : 13>

appointed SeIor $onato &t/rralde a resident of this cit+ to the office of

committee of appraisal in the a,o-eentitled proceeding

CTherefore and in compliance ith the a,o-ementioned decree SeIor

$onato &t/rralde a resident of this cit+ is appointed a mem,er of thecommittee of appraisal and to hear the claims that ma+ ,e presented

against the propert+ of this estate hich committee ithin thirt+ da+s

from the date of said decree shall deli-er a cop+ of the in-entor+ to this

co/rt and another to the administratriD SeIora Leandra %anarang and

ithin siDt+ da+s shall post a notice at the main door of this co/rtho/se

and in three p/,lic places in the m/nicipalit+ here the propert+ of the

said deceased is located in hich shall ,e stated the dates and places

hen and here the meetings of the committee ill ,e held andnotif+ing the creditors that the+ sho/ld present their claims ithin

months co/nting from the date of said notice' said notice f/rthermore

to ,e p/,lished d/ring three consec/ti-e ee@s in the nespaper 9El

&mparcial9 ha-ing general circ/lation in this pro-ince.

C;i-en toda+ the 4th of an/ar+ 13>4 ,+ order of the Hon. /lio

Llorente /dge of the )o/rth /dicial $istrict and of this (ro-ince of

(ampanga.C

"n /l+ 14 the committee filed a report the onl+ report in therecord in hich appears the folloing statement

CThe /ndersigned committee of appraisal and claims against the a,o-e

estate presents to the co/rt the folloing list of all the claims presented

against the said estate since the 7?th of /l+ 13> on hich date the

first p/,lication to creditors as made.C

The p/,lication /nder hich the committee as reporting as ,eg/n

/nder the order of /l+ 7: 13> hich as -acated and ann/lled ,+ the

ordered of an/ar+ 4 13>4 hich ,+ reason of the charges in the

offices of eDec/tor and committee ordered a ne and different notice tocreditors.

"n /l+ 13 petitioner herein made an application to the co/rt to

reopen the sessions of the committee and permit him to present the claim

mentioned in the ill. This as denied #o-em,er 7 13>3 the co/rt

simpl+ sa+ing


18/33

CThis ca/se ha-ing ,een heard and the parties ha-ing presented their

arg/ments the motion is denied ,+ reason of the lapse of time.C

"n #o-em,er 71 131> the petitioner mo-ed the co/rt that the testator

ha-ing recogni=ed and legali=ed the de,t in his ill and ha-ing ordered

his eDec/tor to pa+ the same to the petitioner said eDec/tor ,e orderedand directed to pa+ said claim to the petitioner p/rs/ant to the testator9s

directions. This motion as denied April 72 1311 /pon the same

gro/nd as the other motion.

The appeal is from ,oth of these orders and ,rings /p so m/ch of the

record as is pertinent to these 0/estions.

The co/rt has held on this appeal

1. That the motion last mentioned is an action. The opinion sa+s

CThe petition of the plaintiff filed on #o-em,er 71 131> . . . appears to,e nothing more or less than a complaint instit/ting an action against the

administratriD for the reco-er+ of the s/m of mone+.C After disc/ssing

this phase of the case the co/rt concl/des CHis claim against the estate

ha-ing ,een a simple de,t the present action as improperl+ instit/ted

against the administratriD 5sec. 233 !ode !i-. (roc.6.C This is one of the

gro/nds of the decision.

7. That the recognition of the de,t in the ill and the direction of the

testator to pa+ the same ha-e no significance in la.:. That notithstanding this recognition and direction the claim

sho/ld ha-e ,een presented to the committee appointed to hear and

determine claims against the estate.


19/33

La+ing aside for a moment those holdings of the co/rt hich declare

that the claim is one hich m/st ,e presented to land passed /pon ,+ a

committee & am compelled to differ from e-er+ other proposition and

statement of fact appearing in the decision pertinent to the iss/e

in-ol-ed eDcept the single one that the claim as not presented to acommittee. That it as not presented is conceded' indeed the fact that it

as not is the hole ca/se of this proceeding.

& am compelled to ,elie-ed that the statement of the decision that Cthe

record affirmati-el+ shos that the committee did ma@e the p/,lications

re0/ired ,+ laC is not 0/ite in accordance ith the record as & read it.

The opinion does not refer me to an+ e-idence of record hich s/pports

its statement. Where is this e-idence here is this record hich

Caffirmati-el+ shosFC & ha-e ,een /na,le to find it. Here is all of thee-idence if it ma+ ,e called e-idence hich & am a,le to find in the

record relati-e to the p/,lication of the notices to creditors

5a6 An affida-it of the p/,lisher of CEl &mparcial C setting o/t that the

notice to creditors attached to the affida-it and signed ,+ (edro A,ad

Santos 5ho ,efore the completion of the p/,lication resigned6 and

%arcos Tanc/aco dated /l+ 7: 13> as p/,lished Cthree ee@s from

the 7?th of /l+ to the 12th of A/g/st 13>.C

The notice referred to is as follosCThe /ndersigned committee of appraisal here,+ notifies the creditors of

L/cas de "campo deceased and all other persons ho ha-e claims

against the estate of said deceased to present the same ith -o/ches

ithin siD months from the date of this notice to the committee e-er+

%onda+ ,eteen < and ? o9cloc@ p.m. at the delling ho/se of (edro

A. Santos Sagasta Street San )ernando (ampanga. $ated San

)ernando (ampanga (. &. /l+ 7: 13>. Signed (edro A,ad Santos

committee. %arcos Tanc/aco committee.C

The defecti-eness of the affida-it is apparent. &t does not sho hetherthe nespaper as dail+ ee@l+ ,iee@l+ or monthl+ or the da+ of the

ee@ or month on hich p/,lished. &t does not sho that the notice as

p/,lished three ee@s s/ccessi-el+ that is once each ee@ for three

s/ccessi-e ee@s as re0/ired ,+ la and the order of the co/rt. So

am,ig/o/s is it that is might mean that the notice as p/,lished once


20/33

namel+ three ee@s from /l+ 7?. (assing hoe-er these defects &

note that the notice to creditors re0/ires them to present their claims at

the delling ho/se of (edro A,ad Santos. &t sho/ld ,e noted as ,efore

stated that this commissioner resigned ,efore the eDpiration of the siD

months th/s ma@ing it necessar+ for creditors to present their claimsand their proofs thereof to one ho as not a mem,er of the committee

and to a man ho immediatel+ on his resignation ,ecame the attorne+

of the estate. This ill ,ecome important hen e later disc/ss the

significance of the fact that the co/rt as alread+ seen an/ar+ 4 13>4

made a ne order re0/iring that a ne notice ,e gi-en to creditors to ,e

p/,lished thereafter there,+ re-o@ing the order of /l+ 7: 13> and

ann/lling the notice to creditors a,o-e set o/t and then in co/rse of

p/,lication.5,6 The remaining item of e-idence hich it is claimed tends to sho

that the notice to creditors as d/l+ p/,lished is the reference made ,+

the commissioners in their report to the co/rt a,o-e 0/oted in hich

the+ sa+ referring to /l+ 7? 13> Con hich date the first p/,lication

to creditors as made.C

This reference cannot ,e called e-idence of p/,lication altho/gh the

co/rt accepts it as s/ch. At most it refers and is limited in terms to the

first p/,lication. &t has not the slightest reference to the otherp/,lications if an+.

This 5a6 and 5,6 is all the e-idence in the hole record relati-e to the

p/,lication of the notice to creditors. Admitting it all to ,e tr/e and

gi-ing it all the eight possi,le does it esta,lish Caffirmati-el+ that the

committee did ma@e the p/,lications re0/ired ,+ laFC & am of the

opinion not. The la re0/ires in addition to the p/,lication in the

nespapers that Cthe committee . . . shall post a notice in fo/r p/,lic

places in the pro-ince stating the times and places of their meetings and

the time limited for creditors to present their claims . . .C and gi-e s/chother notice as the co/rt directs.

Where is there in the record e-idence shoing that this as doneF

#ohere. As & record there is not a s+lla,le of s/ch e-idence in all the

case.


21/33

& therefore am forced to the concl/sion that the declaration of the co/rt

that Cthe record affirmati-el+ shos that the committee did ma@e the

p/,lications re0/ired ,+ laC is itho/t s/fficient e-idence to s/pport it.

After a thoro/gh reading of the record & am rel/ctantl+ forced to a

f/rther concl/sions namel+ that instead of there ,eing e-idence in thecase shoing the p/,lication re0/ired ,+ la there is e-idence shoing

the precise contrar+.

Let /s remem,er that the first order of the co/rt directing the committee

to p/,lish notice to creditors as iss/ed /l+ 7: 13>. &t is conceded

that p/,lication in a nespaper of some sort as started /nder that order.

B/t the co/rt e-identl+ ,ecoming satisfied that /nder all the

circ/mstances the p/,lication /nder the order o/ld not ,e s/fficient to

gi-e creditors fair notice on an/ar+ 4 13>4 and ,efore the p/,lication/nder the first order if there as e-er started in realit+ a p/,lication

/nder that order as completed made a second order of p/,lication.

The reason for this order as e-identl+ that d/ring the siD months

s/cceeding the date of the notice hich it is claimed as p/,lished

/nder the first order three persons held the office or eDec/tor the

compleDion of the committee itself as changed and the mem,er of the

committee at hose ho/se the notice re0/ired the claims and -o/chers to

,e presented resigned from the committee and ,ecame the attorne+ ofthe estate. (edro A,ad Santos ha-ing ceased to ,e a mem,er of the

committee and ha-ing ,ecome attorne+ for the estate and the notice to

the creditors re0/iring that claims ith their -o/chers ,e presented at his

ho/se there as no longer a proper place designated here creditors

co/ld present their claims. )/rthermore the contin/al change in the

eDec/torship alread+ noted ma+ ha-e res/lted in gra-e preG/dice to the

estate if the estate ere to ,e held responsi,le for all claims presented

d/ring the time those changes ere ta@ing place it ,eing the d/t+ of the

eDec/tor /nder the la to ,e present at the hearing on claims anddefend the estate against hich he deemed /nG/st and the fre0/ent

change in the office there,+ ,ringing in persons /nfamiliar ith hat

had gone ,efore certainl+ not tending to efficienc+.

All these facts ta@en in connection ith the defecti-eness of the

affida-it of the p/,lication of the notice and the fact that there as no


22/33

posting of the notices as re0/ired ,+ la that the notice itself as

defecti-e in that it re0/ired the claims to ,e presented ithin siD months

from the date of the notice instead of the date of the last p/,lication

thereof as the la properl+ interpreted re0/ires all these facts & sa+

/ndo/,tedl+ led the co/rt to ,elie-e that the pre-io/s proceedingsrelati-e to claims sho/ld ,e ann/lled and that a ne order of p/,lication

sho/ld ,e made. Accordingl+ on an/ar+ 4 13>4 as aforesaid an order

as made and entered as a,o-e set forth re0/iring a ne p/,lication ,+

a ne committee. This order had the effect of co/rse of -acating and

ann/lling the pre-io/s order co-ering the same s/,Gect matter.

&t is /ndisp/ted that no p/,lication has e-er ,een made or e-en

attempted /nder this order of an/ar+ 4 13>4. The onl+ p/,lication

referred to in the record or in the opinion in this case is that /nder theorder of /l+ 7: 13>. #o one contends that an+ other p/,lication has

e-er ,een made or attempted.

That this order of an/ar+ 4 13>4 as considered the go-erning order

in the case and that it as an ann/lment of all prior proceedings and

orders relati-e to the same s/,Gect matter is clear. &f notice had ,een

gi-en as pro-ided ,+ that order the siD months9 term according to the

order o/ld ha-e eDpired some time in /l+ 13>4. This of co/rse as

clearl+ /nderstood ,+ the co/rt and e find the co/rt e-er anDio/s toha-e the estate settled as 0/ic@l+ as possi,le /nder the la ma@ing the

folloing order on the 7d da+ of April 13>4

C&t is here,+ ordered that the administratriD present her in-entor+ ,efore

the 1st da+ of %a+ and the committee its report ithin the time pro-ided

,+ la and that the administratriD present her acco/nt ,efore the 1st da+

of A/g/st 13>4.C

This order demonstrates concl/si-el+ that the co/rt ,elie-ed that the

committee as gi-ing the notice to creditors as pro-ided ,+ the order of

an/ar+ 4 13>4 and not that of /l+ 7: 13>' for if the notice as to,e gi-en /nder the latter and the p/,lication ,egan /l+ 7? 13> then

the time ithin hich the committee as to report eDpired in an/ar+

13>4 5see opinion6 long ,efore the order of April 7 13>4 as iss/ed

5!ode !i-. (roc. sec. 23:6 and the re0/irement therein that the

committee report Cithin the time pro-ided ,+ laC as idle. The co/rt


23/33

e-identl+ ,elie-ed that notice as ,eing p/,lished /nder the order of

an/ar+ 4 13>4 that the siD months9 period o/ld eDpire in /l+ that

the committee co/ld therefore report to the administratriD the n/m,er

and amo/nts of the claims presented and alloed and that she co/ld

therefore render her acco/nt ,efore the 1st da+ of A/g/st as in theorder of April 7 re0/ired. This order is strictl+ inconsistent from e-er+

point of -ie ith the idea that the order of /l+ 7: 13> as in force

and that p/,lication of the notice to creditors as proceeding there/nder.

& therefore sa+ that the record demonstrates not onl+ that the

declaration of the co/rt that Cthe record affirmati-el+ shos that the

committee did ma@e the p/,lications re0/ired ,+ laC is itho/t

s/fficient fo/ndation in fact ,/t also that the contrar+ is tr/e namel+

that no p/,lication as e-er made /nder the onl+ order /nder hich itco/ld ,e legall+ made.

& contend f/rthermore that this proceedings is not an action against an

eDec/tor to reco-er a de,t against the estate of his testator. The decision

of the co/rt that it is an action and not ,eing one of those hich /nder

the !ode can ,e ,ro/ght against an eDec/tor and m/st ,e dismissed for

that reason is in m+ G/dgment erroneo/s. & do not /nderstand ho a

motion to compel an eDec/tor to compl+ ith the directions in a ill can

,e called an action to reco-er a de,t in the sense that s/ch motion isprohi,ited ,+ la.

$ealing ith the second ,ranch of the case herein the co/rt holds that

the de,t sho/ld ha-e ,een presented to a committee.

The proposition that a de,t hich is recogni=ed ,+ the highest possi,le

a/thorit+ the de,tor himself in the most solemn instr/ment @non to

the la and the one hose pro-isions are the most sacredl+ carried o/t

,+ the co/rts his last ill and testament hich de,t the testator in his

ill eDpressl+ ordered his eDec/tor to pa+ to the creditor ,+ name m/st

,e presented to the committee for them to determine hether it is a -alidclaim and hether it o/ght to ,e paid is a proposition hich appeals

neither to m+ reason nor m+ sense of G/stice. There is no stat/te

eDpressl+ re0/iring s/ch presentation. There is none hich ,+ necessar+

implication re0/ires it. To ,ring s/ch a de,t ithin the la re0/iring

presentation to the committee interpretation and constr/ction m/st ,e


24/33

in-o@ed to s/ch an eDtent as to shoc@ if not -iolate the ordinar+ canons

applica,le thereto. This is partic/larl+ tr/e hen s/ch interpretation and

constr/ction are resorted to depri-e a creditor of a claim the -alidit+ and

G/stice of hich is not onl+ /ndisp/ted ,/t /n0/estioned.

There is no pro-ision of the !ode of !i-il (roced/re eDpressl+ re0/iringthe presentation of an+ claim to a committee. (ro-ision is made for the

appointment of a committee hich is a/thori=ed to hear certain classes

of claims ,/t nohere is there an eDpress pro-isions re0/iring a

creditors to present his claim. There is to ,e s/re a section hich

pro-ides 5sec. 23?6 that if a creditor fails to present his claim if it is a

certain @ind of claim ithin the time pro-ided in the la it ill ,e

,arred. &t is therefore gathered ,+ implication that e-er+ creditor ha-ing

a certain @ind of claim m/st present it' ,/t there is no pro-isioneDpressl+ re0/iring it. %oreo-er it m/st ,e caref/ll+ noted that onl+

certain claims need to ,e presented to the committee and that onl+

certain claims are ,arred pro-ided the+ are not eDhi,ited. Section 242

confers /pon the committee hate-er G/risdiction it ma+ ha-e ith

respect to the hearing of claims apart from those /pon hich actions

ere ,eg/n against decedent in his lifetime. &t pro-ides that Cthe+ ma+

tr+ and decide /pon claims hich ,+ la s/r-i-e against eDec/tors or

administrator eDcept claims for the possession of or title to real estate'Cand /nder section 23? onl+ those claims are ,arred hich are Cproper to

,e alloed ,+ the committee.C

We see then that the committee is a/thori=ed to ta@e G/risdiction o-er

those claims onl+ hich s/r-i-e against an eDec/tor or administrator.

The code does not define or declare Chat claims s/r-i-e against

eDec/tors or administrators.C &f refers to certain actions hich ha-ing

,een commenced ,+ the deceased in his lifetime ma+ ,e contin/ed after

his death ,+ his eDec/tor or administrator. &t nohere tells /s Chat

claims s/r-i-e against eDec/tors or administratorsC or hat claims areCproper to ,e alloed ,+ the committee.C We are /na,le to sa+

therefore from the conteDt of the !ode itself hat the a/thors thereof

meant ,+ the /se of the phrases Cclaims hich s/r-i-e against eDec/tors

or administratorsC and hich are Cproper to ,e alloed ,+ the

committee.C All that is clear is that it as the intention of the ne to


25/33

restrict the G/risdiction of the committee and @eep it ithin certain

limitations and to that end /sed these limitati-e eDpressions. &t sho/ld

,e noted hoe-er that these limitations refer to claims and ha-e no

reference to actions ,eg/n against the deceased ,efore his death. The

distinction made in the !ode ,eteen claims and actions ,eg/n againstthe decedent d/ring his lifetime and the respecti-e pro-isions referring

to those to s/,Gects is entirel+ lost sight of in the decision of the co/rt.

This ,eing so the folloing reasoning fo/nd in the decision ,ased /pon

the fail/re to disting/ish ,eteen claims and actions ,eg/n against

deceased in his lifetime in-ol-es a concl/sion in no sense related to the

premises from hich it is ded/ced

C$o plaintiff9s claims fall ithin an+ of these sectionsF The+ are

descri,ed in the ill as de,ts. There is nothing in the ill to indicate thatan+ or all of them are contingent claims claims for the possession of or

title to real propert+ damages for inG/r+ to person or propert+ real or

personal or for the possession of specified articles of personal propert+.

#or is asserted ,+ the plaintiff that the+ do. The concl/sion is that the+

ere claims proper to ,e considered ,+ the committee.C

That there is no necessar+ relation ,eteen these to s/,Gects is

apparent. That an action for Cmone+ de,t or damagesC ,eg/n against

the decedent in his lifetime m/st /nder section >> ,e discontin/ed/pon his death Cand the claim em,raced in s/ch action ma+ ,e presented

to the committee ho shall allo the part+ pre-ailing the costs of s/ch

action to the time of its discontin/anceC does not necessaril+ mean that

s/ch claim if no action had ,een ,eg/n /pon it is one hich m/st ,e

eDhi,ited to the committee. Whether an action ,eg/n against the

decedent in his lifetime s/r-i-es or does not s/r-i-e has no necessar+

relation ith the necessit+ of presenting a claim to the committee. Wo/ld

it ,e logical to arg/e that ,eca/se an action ,eg/n against the deceased

did not s/r-i-e therefore ,e presented to the committee or that ,eca/sean action ,eg/n against the deceased in his lifetime did s/r-i-e that

therefore the claim /pon hich it as ,ased co/ld and m/st ,e

presented to the committeeF Ass/redl+ not.

#o general re0/irement that all claims m/st ,e presented to the

committee appearing in the !ode and it affirmati-el+ appearing that


26/33

there as an intention to restrict the poer of the committee in the

hearing of claims it necessaril+ follos that the concl/sion reached ,+

the co/rt that all claims m/st ,e eDhi,ited to the committee is a p/re

inference and one not at all arranted ,+ the pro-isions of the !ode or

,+ the r/les of interpretation and constr/ction. To me it is a concl/siona,sol/tel+ necessar+ from the lang/age of sections 242 and 23? that not

all claims need to ,e eDhi,ited. B+ eDpress lang/age these sections

restrict the committee to the hearing of s/ch claims as s/r-i-e against

eDec/tors and administrators and onl+ those are ,arred hich are proper

to ,e presented to the committee.

The anser to the 0/estion does the claim at ,ar s/r-i-e against

eDec/tors or administrators ,rings /s to an eDposition of the -ario/s

f/ndamental errors made ,+ the co/rt in holding that the de,t in 0/estionis one hich m/st ,e presented to the committee. "ne of them is

in-ol-ed in the declaration that the de,t in 0/estion is a claim ithin the

meaning of the la. &n cases s/ch as this it is proper and necessar+ to

ma@e a distinction ,eteen a claim and a de,t. A de,t is a claim hich

has ,een fa-ora,l+ passed /pon ,+ the highest a/thorit+ to hich it can

in la ,e s/,mitted and has ,een declared to ,e a de,t. A claim on the

other hand is a de,t in em,r+o. &t is mere e-idence of a de,t and m/st

pass thro/gh the process prescri,ed ,+ la ,efore it de-elops into hatit properl+ called a de,t. The de,t in the case at ,ar ne-er as a claim.

B+ the act of the testator himself it as raised to the dignit+ of a de,t

and it remains s/ch and m/st ,e acted /pon as s/ch ,+ the co/rts as ell

as ,+ all others. &t as ,+ the testator selected from the mass of his

o,ligations hich are correctl+ called claims and treated to a process

hich de-eloped it into a thing called a Cde,tC o-er hich no committee

has G/risdiction and ith the d/e co/rse of hich it has no a/thorit+ to

interfere.

The second f/ndamental error folloing nat/rall+ from the first isfo/nd in the declaration of the co/rt that the de,t in 0/estion is a claim

hich s/r-i-es against the eDec/tor or administrator and m/st therefore

,e eDhi,ited to the committee. This error in-ol-es in m+ h/m,le

opinion a mis/nderstanding of the nat/re of a ill and of the o,ligation

hich a direction in a ill imposes /pon all persons eDec/ting it. A ill


27/33

is the testator spea@ing after death. &ts pro-ision ha-e s/,stantiall+ the

same force and effect in the pro,ate co/rt as if the testator stood ,efore

the co/rt in f/ll life ma@ing the declarations ,+ ord of mo/th as the+

appear in the ill. That as the special p/rpose of the la in the creation

of the instr/ment @non as the last ill and testament. %en ished tospea@ after the+ ere dead and the la ,+ the creation of that

instr/ment permitted them to do so. &t is /pon this theor+ and aro/nd

this p/rpose that there has gron that ,od+ of the la hich /niforml+

and /ni-ersall+ declares that the ords of the testator spo@en in his ill

shall ,e sacredl+ attended ,+ this eDec/tor and enforced ,+ the co/rt. &t

has ,een declared a f/ndamental maDim the first greatest r/le the

so-ereign g/ide the polestar in gi-ing effect to a ill that the intention

of the testator as eDpressed in the ill shall ,e f/ll+ and p/nct/all+o,ser-ed. &f ,+ the /se of clear and /nam,ig/o/s lang/age he has made

his meaning clear and certain his ill eDplains itself and all that the

co/rt can do is to gi-e it effect. All do/,ts m/st ,e resol-ed in fa-or of

the testator9s ha-ing meant G/st hat he said. His p/rpose ma+ seem

/nG/st /nnat/ral or a,s/rd to /s' +et to ref/se to eDec/te it is to destro+

it. As !hief /stice %arshall said CThe intent of the testator is the

cardinal r/le in the constr/ction of ills' and if that intent can ,e clearl+

percei-ed and is not contrar+ to some positi-e r/le of la it m/stpre-ail.C 5: (eters :


28/33

testator no more force effect or significance than it gi-es to the ords of

a promissor+ note or a mortgage.

The third f/ndamental error into hich the decision has fallen is that it

misconcei-es the d/ties of an eDec/tor and of a co/rt relati-e to the

pro-isions of a ill. &t is of co/rse aDiomatic that it is the d/t+ of theeDec/tor /nder the direction of the co/rt to carr+ o/t p/nct/all+ and

ith the /tmost care e-er+ pro-ision of the ill. That is h+ he is named

CeDec/tor.C He is an CeDec/torC of a ill ,eca/se he CeDec/tesC the ill.

When he ref/ses or neglects to perform that f/nction he ceases to ,e an

eDec/tor and ,ecomes a per-erter or a destro+er. Section 2 pro-ides

that the estate of a decedent shall ,e disposed of according to his ill

and the ,ond to ,e gi-en ,+ an eDec/tor prescri,ed in section 2


29/33

eDec/ted. This altho/gh it seems to me is strange /pon its face is

precisel+ hat the co/rt has in effect done in its decision' for if a de,t

eDpressl+ ac@noledged in the ill and specificall+ ordered paid therein

m/st ,e s/,mitted to a committee it means that the+ ma+ in the

eDercise of their G/dgment ref/se its pa+ment. This in its t/rn meansthat the pro-ision of the ill in relation thereto is ann/lled. B+ this

process the committee ma+ therefore ann/l an eDpress and mandator+

pro-ision of a ill hich is a ,inding as pro-ision gi-ing a legac+ or

ma@ing a de-ise. &t is to the pro,ate co/rt and to it alone that the la

confides the poer to ann/l and set aside pro-isions in ills. The

eDec/tor himself the -er+ clearest demonstration that the pro-ision

-iolates a positi-e pro-ision of la or is against the p/,lic polic+ of the

state. &n spite of this it is the decision of this co/rt that a committee ofto or more persons none of hom is a la+er none of ho ma+ ,e

e-en a ,/siness man all of hom ma+ ,e ignorant and ineDperienced

ma+ sit in an informal a+ and ith all the imperfections inherent in

s/ch a tri,/nal and the practice hich go-erns its deli,erations ma+

re-o@e a mandator+ pro-ision in the most solemn instr/ment @non to

the la. The ,are statement of s/ch a proposition is it seems to me its

clearest ref/tation.

The fifth f/ndamental error into hich the co/rt has fallen follosnat/rall+. As e ha-e said the decision gi-es no significance to the fact

the de,t at ,ar appears ac@noledged and legali=ed in a last ill and

testament and that the testator therein solemnl+ ordered and directed his

eDec/tor to pa+ it. &nstead the decision remands the creditor to the

committee in eDactl+ the same condition as an+ other creditor. He goes

there ith the ,/rden of proof on him ith the necessit+ of esta,lishing

affirmati-el+ and ,+ a fair preponderance of the e-idence the eDistence

of the claim the consideration therefor and the fact that it has not ,een

paid. There are laid /pon him the restrictions and limitations imposed ,+section :4: of the !ode of !i-il (roced/re hich stop his mo/th as a

itness /nder certain conditions. He is there ith e-er+ ,/rden ith

e-er+ restriction /pon him /nder hich another creditor la,ors ho has

not a scrap of ritten e-idence to s/pport his claim. &t is no ade0/ate

repl+ to sa+ that he can p/t the ill in e-idence. He co/ld do that ith


30/33

an+ other e-idence that he might ha-e. %oreo-er that repl+ is a f/ll

admission of all that & ha-e maintained that the ill is gi-en no

significance or -al/e as s/ch ,/t is red/ced to the mere f/nction of

,eing e-idence to ,e passed /pon ,+ the committee. )/rthermore it is

inc/m,ent /pon him to pro-e that the claim has nor ,een paid and this isthe -er+ point hich ma+ ,e thing most diffic/lt to esta,lish' and it is in

relation to this that the restrictions and limitations imposed ,+ the

section referred to prod/ce their greatest effect. This certainl+ cannot ,e

la. &t cannot ,e that a creditor hose de,t is recogni=ed as is the one at

,ar occ/pied a position no different from that of a creditor hose de,t is

not so recogni=ed. To contend the contrar+ it seems to me flies in the

face not onl+ of la and G/stice ,/t of common sense as ell.

The fact that a de,t is mentioned in the ill as one not satisfied has atleast the effect of changing the ,/rden of proof from the creditor to the

estate. &nstead of the creditor ,eing re0/ired to esta,lish the -alidit+ of

the claim and the fact of nonpa+ment it is inc/m,ent /pon the estate to

sho pa+ment affirmati-el+. At the -er+ least recognition ,+ the testator

in his ill sho/ld ,e gi-en that m/ch significance. The co/rt does not

e-en concede this. The pro-ision ,efore /s hile not a pro-ision for a

legac+ has ne-ertheless the same force and effect' and as a legatee is not

,o/nd to sho affirmati-el+ his right to the legac+ and as it is the d/t+of the eDec/tor to see@ o/t the o/t the legatee and pa+ him the legac+ so

it is not the d/t+ of the creditor in this case to sho affirmati-el+ his

right to the pa+ment of the de,t ,/t it is the d/t+ of the eDec/tor

@noing nothing to the contrar+ to see@ o/t the creditor and pa+ him as

the testator has ordered him to go. &f he @nos an+thing to the contrar+

the ,/rden is no him to demonstrate it.

These considerations nat/rall+ lead /s to the point so strongl+ /rged in

the decision and hich & regard for the p/rpose /rged itho/t force

that the de,t ma+ ha-e ,een paid ,eteen the time of the ma@ing of theill and the death of the testator' and that therefore it o/ght not to ,e

paid ,+ the eDec/tor /ntil the 0/estion of pa+ment is propert+

determined. #o one is disp/ting that proposition. B/t its admission does

not at all mean that to determine hether the claim has ,een paid or not

it m/st ,e presented to the committee. &f it is the d/t+ of the co/rt


31/33

thro/gh the eDec/tor to see that the ill is conscientio/sl+ eDec/ted

hat more nat/ral if not a,sol/tel+ necessar+ than to s/,mit to the

co/rt hether the pro-ision recogni=ing a de,t and ordering its pa+ment

sho/ld ,e carried o/t. What arg/ment can ,e add/ced hich does not

fl+ s0/arel+ in the face of reason to esta,lish the proposition that a co/rthas no ,/siness to determine hether a partic/lar pro-ision of a ill

shall ,e carried o/t or not hen its s/preme d/t+ is to re0/ire the

p/nct/al and precise eDec/tion of the hole illF Ho can it ,e

maintained that hether or not a partic/lar pro-ision in a ill shall ,e

carried o/t m/st ,e s/,mitted not to the co/rt hich has eDcl/si-e

G/risdiction of hole ill ,/t to a committee of to or more ignorant

and ineDperienced personsF &f it is the d/t+ of the co/rt to see that the

ill is eDec/ted as a hole then there m/st go ith that d/t+ the poerto determine hether a partic/lar pro-ision ordering the pa+ment of a

specific de,t shall ,e eDec/ted or not. B/t the determination of this

0/estion is the determination of the 0/estion of pa+ment. Wh+ ta@e from

the co/rt hich is the sole ,od+ that has the poer to determine

hether pro-isions in ills shall ,e carried o/t the determination of

hether a de,t recogni=ed in a partic/lar pro-ision has or has not ,een

paid and t/rn it o-er to a committee s/ch as & ha-e descri,edF

&t is th/s seen that the proposition gi-en so great eight in the decisionnamel+ that the de,t sho/ld ,e s/,mitted to the committee in order to

determine hether it has ,een paid is itho/t point or force. The co/rt

co/ld ma@e that determination far ,etter than a committee. The practice

leading to the determination ,+ a co/rt as to hether or not a gi-en

pro-ision in a ill shall ,e carried o/t is -er+ simple m/ch simpler than

is the proceeding ,efore a committee. The eDec/tor finding that the ill

orders him to pa+ a certain de,t and ha-ing no @noledge of his on

that s/ch de,t has alread+ ,een paid presents his final acco/nt to the

co/rt in hich he assert that he is going to pa+ the de,t in accordanceith the pro-isions of ill. #otice is gi-en to all parties interested in the

estate. The+ appear. &f the+ or an+ of them @no of an+ reason h+ that

pro-ision of the ill sho/ld not ,e carried o/t the+ ma+ manifest it.

Upon that manifestation a hearing ill ,e had and the co/rt ill

determine hether or not the pro-ision of the ill has alread+ ,een


32/33

eDec/ted in hole or in part and /pon that determination he ill rest a

G/dgment in hich he ill order the eDec/tor to carr+ o/t the pro-ision

of the ill ,+ the pa+ment of the de,t or he ill declare that the

pro-ision has alread+ ,een carried o/t ,+ pa+ment. What simpler than

this hat more cond/ci-e to G/sticeF Who can sa+ that the s/,mission ofthe same 0/estion to a committee is ,etter than the s/,mission to a

co/rtF &t might as ell ,e /rged that the legali=ation of the ill itself

ere ,etter left to a committee than to a co/rt' for if hether or not the

pro-isions of a ill are to ,e carried o/t m/st ,e left to a committee

then hether it is a ill at all or not ma+ as ell ,e left to the same

a/thorit+.

The attempt of the co/rt to meet the proposition that the ill of the

testator is the la of the case does not satisf+ m+ G/dgment. &t is claimedthat the ill of the testator is not the la of the case here it is in direct

-iolation of a pro-ision of la' and that the !ode of !i-il (roced/re

re0/iring that all claims shall ,e presented to the committee the testator

has no right to eDcept a partic/lar de,t or an+ de,t from the operation of

the !ode.

&n the first place the !ode of !i-il (roced/re does not re0/ire that all

claims shall ,e presented to the committee. &t eDpressl+ limits the claims

hich m/st ,e eDhi,ited. &n the second place the claim that there isan+thing contradictor+ ,eteen the ill of the testator in this partic/lar

case and the pro-ision of the !ode of !i-il (roced/re is in m+

G/dgment rather fancif/l than real. What is the p/rpose of re0/iring the

eDhi,ition of a claim to a committeeF Simpl+ to sa-e the estate from

,eing defra/ded. There is a,sol/tel+ no other reason hich is ,ehind the

la re0/iring s/ch a presentation. &t is claimed that a de,tor ma+ not pa+

a claim d/ring his lifetimeF &f not and the ill is ,/t the testator

spea@ing after death ma+ he not pa+ a de,t in that mannerF &f the man

ho is the estate solemnl+ ac@noledges a de,t and offers to pa+ it hoshall sa+ that the estate is not defra/ded if the de,t ,e paidF And if the

estate is not defra/ded neither the spirit nor the letter of the la hich

has for its o,Gect the protection of the estate has ,een -iolated or e-aded

,/t has on the contrar+ ,een f/ll+ o,ser-ed.


33/33

& do not disc/ss or eDpress an opinion relati-e to the proposition that the

stat/te of nonclaims r/ns against a pro-ision of a ill or s/ggest the

res/lts hich ma+ follo s/ch a doctrine.

The G/dgment sho/ld ,e re-ersed and the pro,ate co/rt ordered to hear

petitioner9s motion of the 71st of #o-em,er and decide it /pon themerits.

Documents

01.a Santos vs Manarang - G.R. No. 8235. March 19, 1914