Pizarro, Sr. v.

Consolacion
G.R. No. 51278, May 9, 1988
J. Gancayco

Digest Author: June Vincent Ferrer III

Topic: Rule 86 – How claims presented/prosecuted

Petitioners: Heirs of Ramon Pizarro, Sr.

Respondents: Hon. Francisco Z. Consolacion, CFI of Davao and Luis Tan alias Chen Yeh-An

Case Summary: Tan filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in favor of a
certain Alfonso Atilano. Petitioners opposed this. CFI set the petition for hearing. Notice of the
CFI’s Order and the petition were published in the Mindanao Times. CFI also issued an Order,
requiring the filing of creditors’ claim against the said estate within the period of 6 months from
the date of the first publication. However, petitioners filed their claims beyond the 6-month period.
Thus, CFI held that their claims were barred for having been filed out of time. Hence, this petition.

The Supreme Court held that CFI set the period for the filing of the claims within 6 months from
the date of the first publication of the notice which was less than the minimum limit of 6 months
provided for by the law. Hence, the CFI shortened the period set by the law. Since the notice
issued and the period set by CFI was not in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 2, Rule 86,
what should then apply is the period as provided for by the rules which is not less than 6 months
nor more than 12 months from the date of first publication of notice.

Doctrine: The range of the period specified in Sec. 2, Rule 86 is intended to give the probate
court the discretion to fix the period for the filing of claims. The probate court is permitted by the
rule to set the period provided it is not less than 6 months nor more than 12 months from the date
of the first publication of the notice thereof. Such period once fixed by the court is mandatory.

FACTS

• On Aug. 12, 1977, Luis Tan filed a verified petition with CFI Davao for the issuance of
letters of administration in favor of a certain Alfonso Atilano

• The petition alleged that:

o Luis Tan is the only surviving son of the deceased Dominga Garcia who died
intestate sometime in 1930 in Canton, China
o The deceased left a parcel of land located at C.M. Recto Avenue, Davao City
o The said lot is in the possession of the Heirs of Ramon Pizarro (petitioners)

• On Oct. 4, 1977, petitioners filed an Opposition, claiming that:

o They are the Heirs of Ramon Pizarro who died intestate on June 16, 1974
o The deceased was the buyer of 1/2 of the disputed lot by virtue of an extrajudicial
settlement of estate and deed of absolute sale executed by Vicenta Tan in
Hongkong on May 27, 1966
o Petitioners prayed that letters of administration of Dominga Garcia's estate be
issued in favor of anyone of them
• CFI set the petition for hearing
o Notice of the CFI’s Order and the petition were published in the Mindanao
Times

• On Dec. 6, 1977, after Tan had begun presentation of evidence, the parties entered into
a compromise
o Petitioners agreed to withdraw their Opposition to the appointment of Tan’s
recommendee and for the intestate proceedings to proceed in due course
o The agreement was approved

• On March 27, 1978, CFI issued an Order, requiring the filing of creditors’ claim
against the said estate within the period of 6 months from the date of the first
publication

• On Feb. 28, 1979, Tan filed a motion to drop and exclude petitioners, on the ground that:
o They do not even claim to be the heirs of the deceased Garcia
o The extrajudicial deed of partition and deed of absolute sale allegedly executed in
Hongkong in favor of the petitioners' deceased father is spurious and simulated

• On March 5, 1979, petitioners filed their Opposition to the said motion

o They also filed a claim against the estate of the deceased Garcia worth P350,000
representing services allegedly rendered by their deceased father in favor of
Vicenta Tan

• On March 8, 1979, Tan filed a reply to petitioners’ opposition and to dismiss the claim
o It is spurious
o It is barred for having been filed beyond the 6-month period set in the notice for
the filing of creditors' claim

• On March 29, 1979, petitioners filed another claim against the estate for P200,000
o Allegedly advanced by their deceased father for the payment of realty and income
taxes of the said lot sometime in 1936

• Tan filed an opposition, claiming that:

o Ut is barred for having been filed beyond the 6-month period
o It was merely intended to delay the proceedings

• CFI dismissed both claims

o They are barred for having been filed out of time

• Hence, this petition

 ISSUES AND HELD

1. W/N petitioners’ claims were filed on time – YES

Petitioners contend:

• CFI’s Order which directed that the filing of claims against the estate of the late Garcia be
filed within 6 months after the first publication of the notice thereof is null and void
• It violates Sec. 2, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court
o It mandates that the filing of such claims should be for a period of 6 months starting
from the 6th month after the date of the first publication of the notice down to the
12th month
• To require filing of claims within the sixth month from publication of notice will shorten the
period which violates Sec. 2, Rule 86

Court:

RULE

• Sec. 2, Rule 86, Rules of Court

o Time within which claims shall be filed. — In the notice provided in the
preceding section, the court shall state the time for the filing of claims against the
estate, which shall not be more than twelve (12) nor less than six (6) months after
the date of the first publication of the notice. However, at anytime before an order
of distribution is entered, on application of a creditor who has failed to file his claim
within the time previously limited, the court may, for cause shown and on such
terms as are equitable, allow such claim to be filed within a time not exceeding one
(1) month.

• The range of the period specified in Sec. 2, Rule 86 is intended to give the probate court
the discretion to fix the period for the filing of claims.
o The probate court is permitted by the rule to set the period provided it is not less
than 6 months nor more than 12 months from the date of the first publication of the
notice thereof
o Such period once fixed by the court is mandatory

• Purpose of the law in fixing a period within which claims against an estate must be
presented:
o To insure a speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased person and the early
delivery of the property to the person entitled to the same

• Sikat v. Vda. de Villanueva

o The speedy settlement of the estate of deceased persons for the benefit of
creditors and those entitled to the residue by way of inheritance or legacy after the
debts and expenses of administration have been paid is the ruling spirit of our
probate law.
APPLICATION

• In this case, the CFI set the period for the filing of the claims within 6 months from the date
of the first publication of the notice.
o It was less than the minimum limit of 6 months provided for by the law

• Hence, the CFI shortened the period set by the law

• Since the notice issued and the period set by CFI was not in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 2, Rule 86, what should then apply is the period as provided for by
the rules
o Not less than 6 months nor more than 12 months from the date of first publication
of notice

• Here, the first publication of the notice in the Mindanao Times was on March 30, 1978

• The two claims by petitioners against the estate were filed on March 5, 1979 and March
29, 1979
o Thus, they were filed on time

2. W/N the trial court has the authority to determine whether the appeal involves a question of
law or both questions of law and facts – YES

Petitioners contend:

• It is the CA which has the authority to determine whether the issue in the appeal is purely
a question of law
o In which case, it shall certify it to the proper court, which in this case is the SC
• Sec. 3, Rule 50, Rules of Court
o Where the appealed case has been erroneously brought to the CA, it shall not
dismiss the appeal, but shall certify the case to the proper court, with a specific
and clear statement of the grounds therefor

Court:

• When the CFI found that the order sought to be appealed was its order wherein it held
that petitioners’ claims were barred for having been filed beyond the period fixed by the
trial court in the notice
o Such appeal involves an interpretation of Sec. 2, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court

• Here, the CFI, instead of giving due course to the notice of appeal to the CA filed by
petitioners, the petitioners were instructed to file a petition for review with the SC because
the issue is a pure question of law

• CFI is correct
• It is within the competence and jurisdiction of the CFI to determine whether the appeal
interposed was based on pure questions of law or involves both questions of law and facts
in considering the appeal.

• Sec. 3, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court applies only when the appeal is already brought to
the CA
o If so, the CA may, instead of dismissing the appeal, order that the case be certified
to the SC upon determination that it involves a pure question of law

RULING

Petition GRANTED.