Title
Barredo vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-17863
Decision Date
Nov 28, 1962
Heirs of Barredo claimed P20,000 debt against McDonough's estate; SC ruled payment in war notes discharged debt, barred belated claim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185757)

Factual Background

The case involves an appeal from the heirs of Fausto Barredo to collect the face value of a promissory note worth P20,000 plus interest and attorney's fees from the intestate estate of Charles A. McDonough. The promissory note was secured by a mortgage on leased land owned by Constantino Factor and developed by McDonough. The lease originally spanned ten years from 1936, but an extension was granted until 1961. Following Barredo's death in 1942, his heirs partitioned his claims, but subsequent events led to complications in asserting those claims against McDonough's estate.

Legal Proceedings and Claims

After the death of McDonough in 1945, a probate court initiated proceedings and published a notice to creditors, requiring claims to be filed within six months of publication. The notice first appeared on August 23, 1945, giving a deadline of February 23, 1946. The Barredo heirs, however, filed their claim over a year later, on October 22, 1947. The court’s approval of this tardy claim was challenged, leading to a reversal by the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals held that the one-month extension for filing late claims, as stipulated in Section 2 of Rule 87, should begin after the six-month filing period lapsed. It reasoned that the trial court erred by allowing the Barredo heirs' claim, which was deemed outside of the permissible filing timeframe and did not show adequate justification for the delay.

Arguments from Petitioners

The Barredo heirs argued that the delay in filing was warranted due to their recent recovery of the deceased Barredo's documents from his former lawyer. However, the court found this excuse insufficient given that the heirs had prior knowledge of the mortgage annotation on the property title and were aware of the compensation paid for the mortgage by Japanese occupying forces during World War II.

Legal Precedents and Interpretation

In interpreting Section 2 of Rule 87, the decision referenced Paulin vs. Aquino, establishing clarifications regarding the timing of extensions for filing late claims, which cannot merely be calculated from the expiration of the original claim period. Relevant cases indicated that extensions need substantial justification, in

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.