100%(1)100% au considerat acest document util (1 vot)
233 vizualizări2 pagini
1) Alan Sheker filed money claims totaling over P400k against the estate of Alice Sheker for commissions and expenses.
2) The estate administrator, Victoria Medina, moved to dismiss the claims alleging lack of certification against forum shopping, failure to pay docket fees, and failure to provide explanation for non-personal service.
3) The RTC dismissed the claims for those reasons. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the money claim was valid because (1) rules in ordinary civil actions can apply to special proceedings like estate settlements, (2) a money claim is not an initiatory pleading so no certification was needed, and (3) explanations for non-personal service and lack of docket fees were
1) Alan Sheker filed money claims totaling over P400k against the estate of Alice Sheker for commissions and expenses.
2) The estate administrator, Victoria Medina, moved to dismiss the claims alleging lack of certification against forum shopping, failure to pay docket fees, and failure to provide explanation for non-personal service.
3) The RTC dismissed the claims for those reasons. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the money claim was valid because (1) rules in ordinary civil actions can apply to special proceedings like estate settlements, (2) a money claim is not an initiatory pleading so no certification was needed, and (3) explanations for non-personal service and lack of docket fees were
1) Alan Sheker filed money claims totaling over P400k against the estate of Alice Sheker for commissions and expenses.
2) The estate administrator, Victoria Medina, moved to dismiss the claims alleging lack of certification against forum shopping, failure to pay docket fees, and failure to provide explanation for non-personal service.
3) The RTC dismissed the claims for those reasons. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the money claim was valid because (1) rules in ordinary civil actions can apply to special proceedings like estate settlements, (2) a money claim is not an initiatory pleading so no certification was needed, and (3) explanations for non-personal service and lack of docket fees were
Sheker v Estate of Sheker Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, after granting
letters of testamentary or of administration, all persons having money
Facts: claims against the decedent are mandated to file or notify the court 1. Alice Sheker died and her estate was left under the administration of and the estate administrator of their respective money claims. Victoria Medina. Alice left a holographic will which was admitted to 6. A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the probate by the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City. The trial court issued settlement of the decedent's estate. Hence, petitioner's contingent an order for all creditors to file their claims against the estate. In money claim, not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a compliance therewith, Alan Joseph Sheker filed a contingent money certification against non-forum shopping. claim in the amount of P206,250.00 representing the amount of his 7. On the issue of filing fees, the Court ruled in Pascual v. Court of commission as an agent for selling some properties for Alice; and Appeals, that the trial court has jurisdiction to act on a money claim another P275k as reimbursements for expenses he incurred. (attorney's fees) against an estate for services rendered by a lawyer 2. Medina moved for the dismissal of Alan Sheker’s claim alleging among to the administratrix to assist her in fulfilling her duties to the estate others that the money claim filed by Alan Sheker is void because the even without payment of separate docket fees because the filing latter did not attach a certification of non-forum shopping, failed to pay fees shall constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2, docket fees, and failed to provide a written explanation on the service Rule 141, or the trial court may order the payment of such filing fees and filing by registered mail. RTC dismissed the claim because of such within a reasonable time. After all, the trial court had already grounds. assumed jurisdiction over the action for settlement of the estate. Clearly, therefore, non-payment of filing fees for a money claim Issue: W/N the money claims filed by Alan Sheker is valid against the estate is not one of the grounds for dismissing a money claim against the estate. Held: Yes. 8. With regard to the requirement of a written explanation, If only to 1. Before anything, Alan Sheker’s contention that rules in ordinary underscore the mandatory nature of this innovation to our set of action are only supplementary rules in special proceedings is not adjective rules requiring personal service whenever practicable, entirely correct. According to Sec. 2, Rule 72, the ruled provided for Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion to in ordinary civil actions shall be applicable as far as practicable. consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of 2. The word practicable is defined as: possible to practice or perform; service or filing were not resorted to and no written explanation capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished. This was made as to why personal service was not done in the first means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary place. The exercise of discretion must, necessarily consider the actions may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible practicability of personal service, for Section 11 itself begins and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings. with the clause whenever practicable. 3. Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-forum 9. The rule is so worded with the use of may, signifying shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written permissiveness, a violation thereof gives the court discretion explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the payment of whether or not to consider the paper as not filed. While it is true filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any way that procedural rules are necessary to secure an orderly and obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special speedy administration of justice, rigid application of Section 11, proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in the present case. Rule 13 may be relaxed in this case in the interest of substantial justice. 4. However, the principal question is w/n the failure to attach a 10. In the present case, petitioner holds office in Salcedo Village, Makati certification against non-forum shopping would render dismissal. City, while counsel for respondent and the RTC which rendered the 5. The SC ruled that no it does not. The certification of non-forum assailed orders are both in Iligan City. The lower court should have shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory taken judicial notice of the great distance between said cities and pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent money claim realized that it is indeed not practicable to serve and file the money against the estate of a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the claim personally. Thus, following Medina v. Court of Appeals,[12] the present case, the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon failure of petitioner to submit a written explanation why service has the filing of the petition for allowance of the decedent's will. 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.