Remedial Law Case Digest:

ALAN JOSEPH A. SHEKER, petitioner, vs. ESTATE OF ALICE O. SHEKER, VICTORIA S. MEDINA-Administratrix, respondent.

Facts:

The RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice O. Sheker and thereafter issued an order for all the creditors to file their respective claims against the estate. The petitioner filed a contingent claim for the agent’s commission due him and reimbursement for expenses incurred and/or to be incurred by the petitioner in the course of negotiating the sale of said realties.

 

The executrix of the respondent moved for the dismissal of said money claim against the estate on the grounds that the requisite docket fee, as prescribed by the Rules, had not been paid; that the petitioner failed to attach a certification against non-forum shopping; and that the petitioner failed to attach a written explanation as to why the money claim was not filed and served personally.

 

The RTC issued the assailed order dismissing without prejudice the money claim based on the grounds advanced by the respondent.

 

The petitioner maintains that the RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate proceeding the rules requiring a certification of non-forum shopping, a written explanation for non-personal filing, and the payment of docket fees upon filing of the claim. Further, it insists that Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court provides that rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only in a suppletory manner.

 

Issues:

• Did the RTC err in dismissing petitioner’s contingent money claim against respondent estate for failure of petitioner to attach to his motion a certification against non-forum shopping?
• Whether the rules in ordinary actions are can only be applied suppletorily
• Whether the non-payment of the docket fees be a ground of dismissal
• Whether or not written explanation of non-personal service of papers a ground for dismissal

Rulings:

• The Court rules in the affirmative. The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent money claim against the estate of a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the present case, the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for allowance of the decedent’s will. Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, after granting letters of testamentary or of administration, all persons having money claims against the decedent are mandated to file or notify the court and the estate administrator of their respective money claims; otherwise, they would be barred, subject to certain exceptions.

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. Hence, certificate of non-forum shopping is not required.

 

• 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.

 

Stated differently, special provisions under Part II of the Rules of Court govern special proceedings; but in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in Part I of the Rules governing ordinary civil actions shall be applicable to special proceedings, as far as practicable.

 

The word “practicable” is defined as: possible to practice or perform; capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished. 4 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. Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules in ordinary actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to special proceedings. Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-forum shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the payment of filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in the present case.

 

• 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. Clearly, therefore, non-payment of filing fees for a money claim against the estate is not one of the grounds for dismissing a money claim against the estate.

 

• In the present case, petitioner holds office in Salcedo Village, Makati City, while counsel for respondent and the RTC which rendered the assailed orders are both in Iligan City. 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, following Medina 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 settlement of estate of deceased.

Takeaway: Special proceeding is applicable to establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact, or any remedy other than ordinary suit in a court of justice. In this case, the special proceeding helped to expedite the contingent money claims without the need to furnish the prerequisites in an ordinary action.