Case Summary (G.R. No. 157912)
Procedural posture and relief sought
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the RTC’s dismissal (without prejudice) of his contingent money claim against the estate. The RTC had dismissed the claim on three grounds: (1) non-payment of the requisite docket fee under Section 7(a), Rule 141; (2) absence of a certification against non-forum shopping; and (3) failure to attach a written explanation for non-personal service/filing (i.e., why the claim was filed and served by registered mail rather than personally).
Undisputed facts
The RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of the decedent and issued a notice requiring creditors to file claims. Petitioner filed a contingent claim on October 7, 2002 for an agent’s commission (approx. P206,250.00) in the event of sale of certain parcels, and for reimbursement for expenses incurred/to be incurred (P275,000.00) in negotiating such sale. The administratrix moved to dismiss the claim on the three procedural grounds noted above; the RTC granted dismissal and denied reconsideration.
Issues presented to the Court
Petitioner raised three legal questions: (a) whether a contingent claim in probate must contain a certification against non-forum shopping (and must be dismissed if it does not); (b) whether a contingent money claim must be dismissed for failure to pay docket fees upon filing; and (c) whether failure to include a written explanation for non-personal filing/service requires dismissal of the contingent claim.
Applicability of ordinary civil rules to special proceedings
The Court construed Section 2, Rule 72, Part II: special provisions in Part II govern special proceedings; in the absence of such provisions, rules in Part I for ordinary civil actions apply “as far as practicable.” The Court emphasized that this does not mean ordinary rules are categorically inapplicable or merely suppletory; rather, they apply to the extent practicable and where they do not obstruct special proceedings. The procedural requirements at issue (certification against forum shopping, written explanation for non-personal filing, payment of filing fees) do not obstruct probate and therefore may be applicable when practicable.
Certification against forum shopping — initiation vs incidental pleading
The Court held that the certification against non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. A contingent money claim filed in probate is not an initiatory pleading because the probate proceeding itself was initiated by the petition for allowance of the will. A money claim against an estate is an incidental matter tied to the primary action of estate settlement; it is analogous to a motion rather than a new independent suit. Citing Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that a motion addresses collateral or incidental matters arising in the progress of a case. Consequently, the RTC erred in treating the contingent money claim as an initiatory pleading and in requiring a certification against forum shopping.
Filing fees for money claims against estates
On the issue of docket fees, the Court relied on Pascual v. Court of Appeals to hold that non-payment of filing fees at the time of filing a money claim against an estate is not a ground for dismissal. The trial court already has jurisdiction over the probate matter; the filing fees for such a claim may constitute a lien on the judgment (Section 2, Rule 141) or the trial court may order the payment of such fees within a reasonable time. Thus, failure to pay docket fees upon filing did not justify dismissal.
Written explanation for non-personal service and the exercise of judicial discretion
The Court addressed Section 11, Rule 13 (personal service and filing “whenever practicable”) and precedent (Maceda, Solar Team Entertainment, Musa v. Amor). Personal service is the general rule; resort to registered mail or other modes is permitted only when personal service is not practicable and must ordinarily be accompanied by a written explanation. However, the rule is permissive in application: where personal service is impracticable, a written explanation may be superfluous and the court has discretion not to treat the paper as not filed. Applying that principle, the Court n
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157912)
Case Citation, Court and Participating Justice
- G.R. No. 157912; Third Division; Decision dated December 13, 2007.
- Ponente: Justice Austria-Martinez.
- Concurrence: Ynares‑Santiago (Chairperson), Chico‑Nazario, Nachura, and Reyes, JJ.
- No pronouncement as to costs.
Procedural History
- Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City, Branch 6, admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice O. Sheker and issued an order for creditors to file claims.
- Petitioner filed a contingent money claim on October 7, 2002, against the estate.
- Respondent (Executrix/Administratrix) moved to dismiss the money claim on three grounds: (1) required docket fee under Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court was not paid; (2) petitioner failed to attach a certification against non‑forum shopping; and (3) petitioner failed to attach a written explanation why the money claim was not filed and served personally.
- RTC issued an Order dated January 15, 2003 dismissing without prejudice the money claim on the respondent’s grounds.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied per Omnibus Order dated April 9, 2003.
- Petitioner directly filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, raising questions of law.
Undisputed Facts
- The holographic will of Alice O. Sheker was admitted to probate and letters testamentary/administration were issued.
- Petitioner’s contingent claim sought: approximately P206,250.00 as an agent’s commission in the event of the sale of certain parcels of estate land, and P275,000.00 as reimbursement for expenses incurred and/or to be incurred in negotiating the sale of those realties.
- Petitioner filed the contingent claim on October 7, 2002.
- The counsel and offices involved were geographically dispersed: petitioner holds office in Salcedo Village, Makati City; respondent’s counsel and the RTC are in Iligan City.
- The RTC’s dismissal was based on non‑payment of docket fees, lack of certification against non‑forum shopping, and absence of written explanation for non‑personal service.
Questions Presented / Issues Raised
- Whether a contingent claim filed in a probate proceeding must contain a certification against non‑forum shopping, failing which the claim should be dismissed.
- Whether a contingent claim filed against an estate in a probate proceeding must be dismissed for failure to pay docket fees at the time of filing.
- Whether a contingent claim filed in a probate proceeding must be dismissed for failing to contain a written explanation concerning service and filing by registered mail instead of personal service.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- The RTC erred by strictly applying rules applicable to ordinary actions (certification against forum shopping, written explanation for non‑personal filing, immediate payment of docket fees) to a special proceeding for probate.
- Relies on Section 2, Rule 72 (Part II) of the Rules of Court to argue that rules for ordinary actions are only suppletory and should be applied in special proceedings only in a limited/supplementary manner.
Governing Rules and Statutory/Rule Provisions Cited
- Section 2, Rule 72, Part II, Rules of Court: in the absence of special provisions, rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings.
- Section 7(a), Rule 141, Rules of Court: prescribes docket fee requirement (as cited by RTC/respondent).
- Section 5, Rule 86, Rules of Court: mandates that all money claims against the decedent, including contingent claims, must be filed under the notice or be barred, subject to exceptions.
- Section 11, Rule 13, Rules of Court: personal service and filing are general rule; other modes of service and filing require written explanation when personal service is practicable; court has discretion to consider pleading as not filed if rule not complied with.
- Rule 82, Rules of Court: procedural reference for the RTC to act upon the money claim (Court directed RTC to proceed in accordance with Rule 82).
Court’s Preliminary Observations on Applicability of Ordinary Rules to Special Proceedings
- The Court clarified that Section 2, Rule 72 does not categorically render rules of ordinary actions inapplicable to special proceedings; rather, ordinary rules apply “as far as practicable” where no special provisions exist.
- The term “as far as practicable” was explained by reference to Webster’s definition: possible to practice or perform; capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished.
- Hence, the ordinary‑action rules requiring certification against non‑forum shopping, written explanation for non‑personal service, and payment of filing fees may be applicable to probate proceedings if their application does not obstruct the probate process.