SUMMARY:

Sps. Maglasang obtained a credit line from MBC respondent secured by REM. When
Flaviano Maglasang died, his son Edgar was appointed as atty-in-fact by Flaviano’s
heirs. He filed a petition for letters of administration of Flaviano’s intestate estate w/c the
probate court granted. Court issued a Notice to Creditors for filing of money claims
against the estate. MBC notified the court of its claim. When Court terminated the
proceedings and executed an extra-judicial partition over the properties, the loan
obligations owed to MBC remained unsatisfied though the court recognized the rights of
MBC to foreclose the mortgage.

MBC extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage; however, after auction sale, a deficiency
remained on Maglasangs’ obligation. Thus, it filed a suit to recover the deficiency. RTC
ruled in their favor so Maglasangs appealed to CA contending that under Remedies
available to Manila Banking Corp. under Sec. 7, Rule 86 of ROC are alternative and
exclusive, such that the election of one operates as a waiver of the others and since
MBC filed a claim in the probate court, it has abandoned its right to foreclose the
property and is barred from recovering any deficiency. CA denied the appeal and
contended that Act. 3135 applies w/c allows MBC to extrajudicially foreclose and
recover the deficiency.

ISSUE: WHEN MUST THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE DECEASED PERSONS BE

FILED?

RULING:
Claims against deceased persons should be filed during the settlement proceedings
of their estate. Such proceedings are primarily governed by special rules found under
Rules 73 to 90 of the Rules, although rules governing ordinary actions may, as far as
practicable, apply suppletory.

1
In the matter of the will of Donata Manahan. TIBURCIA MANAHAN v. ENGRACIA
MANAHAN

Doctrine:

In the phraseology of the procedural law there is no essential difference between the
authentication of a will and the probate thereof. The words authentication and probate are
synonymous in this case. All the law requires is that the competent court d eclare that in the
execution of the will the essential external formalities have been complied with and that, in view
thereof, the document, as a will, is valid and effective in the eyes of the law.

Facts:

On August 29, 1930, Tiburcia Manahan instituted a proceeding for the probate of the will of the
deceased Donata Manahan. Petitioner, the niece of the testatrix (a woman who made a will),
was named the executrix (female executor) of in the will.

The will was probated, as no opposition was filed against it. The trial court then appointed
Tiburcia as the executrix.

One year and seven months later, on May 11, 1932, the appellant herein filed a motion for
reconsideration and a new trial, praying that the order admitting the will to probate be vacated
and the authenticated will declared null and void.

Appellant Engracia raised the following points for her opposition:

(1) that she was an interested party in the testamentary proceedings and, as such, was entitled
to and should have been notified of the probate of the will;

(2) that the court did not really probate the will but limited itself to decreeing its authentication;
and

(3) that the will is null and void ab initio on the ground that the external formalities prescribed by
the Code of Civil Procedure have not been complied with.

2
Issue:

Whether or not appellant is entitled to and should have been notified of the probate of the will
being an alleged interested party

Ruling:

NO. She was not entitled to notification of the probate of the will and neither had she the right to
expect it, inasmuch as she was not an interested party, not having filed an opposition to the
petition for the probate thereof. Her allegation that she had the status of an heir, being the
deceased's sister, did not confer on her the right to be notified on the ground that the testatrix
died leaving a will in which the appellant has not been instituted heir. Furthermore, not being a
forced heir, she did not acquire any successional right.

On the issue that the court did not really probate the will:

The court really decreed the authentication and probate of the will in question, which is the only
pronouncement required of the trial court by the law in order that the will may be considered
valid and duly executed in accordance with the law. In the phraseology of the procedural law,
there is no essential difference between the authentication of a will and the probate thereof. The
words authentication and probate are synonymous in this case. All the law requires is that the
competent court declared that in the execution of the will the essential external formalities have
been complied with and that, in view thereof, the document, as a will, is valid and effective in the
eyes of the law.

On the issue that the will was not validly probated:

The last contention of the appellant may be refuted merely by stating that, once a will has been
authenticated and admitted to probate, questions relative to the validity thereof can no more be
raised on appeal. The decree of probate is conclusive with respect to the due execution thereof
and it cannot be impugned on any of the grounds authorized by law, except that of fraud, in any
separate or independent action or proceedings.

Fallo: Wherefore, the appeal taken herein is hereby dismissed, with costs against the appellant.
So ordered.

3
4