GR No 157912, December 13, 2007AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,J.

ILIGAN CITYAlan Sheker, petitioner

vs.

(Estate of Alice Sheker) Victoria Medina, Administratrix - respondent

KEY NOTES:I. AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE: This means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings. RULE 72 SEC 1... NOT MERELY SUPPLETORY!ii. The filing of a money claim against the decedents estate in the probate court is mandatory.

This requirement is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased by informing the executor or administrator of the claims against it,The plain and obvious design of the rule is the speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the property to thedistributees, legatees, or heirs.The law strictly requires the prompt presentation and disposition of the claims against the decedent's estate in order to settle the affairs of the estate as soon as possible, pay off its debts and distribute the residue. The ruling spirit of the probate law is the speedy settlement of estates of deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to residue by way of inheritance or legacy after the debts and expenses of administration have been paid

RULE 1 SEC 6: LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF RULES FOR SPEEDY JUST INEXPENSIVE DISPOSITION OF CASES - SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

FACTS:

Petition for allowance of the decedent Alice Sheker's holographic will was filed to the RTC, thereafter RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice O.Shekerand thereafter issued an order for all the creditors to file their respective claims against the estate.

Alan Sheker, petitioner filed a contingent claim for agent's commission due him in the event of the sale of certain parcels of land belonging to the estate, and reimbursement for expenses incurred and/or to be incurred by petitioner in the course of negotiating the sale of said realties.

The executrix of the Estate of Alice O.Sheker(respondent Victoria Medina) moved for the dismissal of said money claim against the estate on the grounds that (1) the requisite docket fee, as prescribed in Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, had not been paid; (2) petitioner failed to attach a certification against non-forum shopping; and (3) petitioner failed to attach a written explanation why the money claim was not filed and served personally.

RTC issued the assailed Order dismissing without prejudice the money claim based on ALL of repondent's grounds.ISSUE/HELD:

I. WON the rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only in asuppletorymanner?

NO. Section 2, Rule 72, Part II of the same Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 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.

The word practicable is defined as:possible to practice or perform; capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished. This means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings. and not mereley suppletory!

ii. WON ATTACHMENT OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING REQUIRED FOR CREDITOR'S CLAIM IN PROBATE PROCEEDING?

NO. Although the requirement of Non-forum shopping is applicable if not in conflict or obstacle to spec. proc., like in probate proceeding. However it only applies to complaint or other initiatory pleading... the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for allowance of the decedent's will, hence the petition by creditors for their claim against the estate is merely a motion for creditor's claim (Rule 86, sec 1 and 5).

A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the decedent's estate; more so if the claim is contingent since the claimant cannot even institute a separate action for a mere contingent claim.Hence,herein petitioner's contingent money claim, not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against non-forum shopping.

iii. WON Non-payment of DOCKET/FILING FEES of creditor's claim in probate proceeding ground for dismissal?

NO. because the creditor's claim is not initiatory. It is not a ground for dismissal , because such filing fees constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, or the trial court may order the payment of such filing fees within a reasonable time. After all, the trial court had already assumed jurisdiction over the action for settlement of the estate.

iv. WON WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF NON-PERSONAL SERVICE OF PAPERS a ground for dismissal?

In the present case, NO.. situational...

Petitioner holds office inSalcedoVillage,MakatiCity, while counsel for respondent and the RTC which rendered the assailed orders are both inIliganCity.The lower court should have taken judicial notice of the great distance between said cities and realized that it is indeed not practicable to serve and file the money claim personally.Thus, followingMedina v. Court of Appeals, the failure of petitioner to submit a written explanation why service has not been done personally, may be considered as superfluous and the RTC should have exercised its discretion under Section 11, Rule 13, not to dismiss the money claim of petitioner, in the interest of substantial justice and purpose of probate proceeding for speedy settelement of estate of deceased.

SC: WHEREFORE,the petition isGRANTED.The Orders of the Regional Trial Court ofIliganCity, areREVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheRegionalTrialCourtofIliganCity, Branch 6, is herebyDIRECTEDto give due course and take appropriate action on petitioner's money claim in accordance with Rule 82 of the Rules of Court.