Scribd
Upload
68 views1 page

47 Gabin vs. Melliza

1) Gabin had contracted with Melliza for 30 years of administering his haciendas in exchange for 350 cavans of palay per year, with the stipulation that Gabin could not be dismissed without cause and would receive 150 cavans per year for the remainder of the 30 years if dismissed. 2) After Melliza's death, his executrix removed Gabin from administering the haciendas. Gabin then filed a claim against Melliza's estate for 150 cavans of palay per year for the remaining 29 years. 3) The probate court denied the claim, finding that it did not qualify as a money claim allowed in testamentary proceedings, as Gabin's

Uploaded by

Goody
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views1 page

47 Gabin vs. Melliza

1) Gabin had contracted with Melliza for 30 years of administering his haciendas in exchange for 350 cavans of palay per year, with the stipulation that Gabin could not be dismissed without cause and would receive 150 cavans per year for the remainder of the 30 years if dismissed. 2) After Melliza's death, his executrix removed Gabin from administering the haciendas. Gabin then filed a claim against Melliza's estate for 150 cavans of palay per year for the remaining 29 years. 3) The probate court denied the claim, finding that it did not qualify as a money claim allowed in testamentary proceedings, as Gabin's

Uploaded by

Goody
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Gabin vs.

Melliza
No. L-1849. October 25, 1949
J. Ozaeta

FACTS:
In his lifetime, Melliza contracted the services of Gabin to administer certain haciendas belonging to the
former for a period of thirty years at a compensation of 350 cavans of palay per agricultural year with the
stipulation that Gabin cannot be dismissed from the service without just and legal cause during the time she
cared to serve within the said period of thirty years and in case of dismissal she shall have the right to be
indemnified for the rest of the period at the rate of 150 cavans of palay for each agricultural year.

After Melliza's death in 1995, his executrix took from Gabin the administration of said haciendas.
Thereafter, Gabin filed a claim against the estate for the payment of 150 cavans of palay per agricultural year
for twenty-nine years. The heirs however opposed the claim since: 1) the claim is not a claim for money; 2) the
agreement was terminated at the death of the principal; 3) Melliza cannot, except by a will, dispose of the
administration of his property; and 4) there was no consideration for the granting of such administration for
30yrs with remuneration.

The probate court sustained the first ground of the opposition and denied the claim. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant’s claim is one that is allowed in a testamentary proceedings.

HELD:
The Rules provides that all persons having money claims against the decedent to file them in the office
of the clerk of said court; likewise, another provision provides that all claims for money against the
decedent arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent,
all claims for funeral expenses and expenses of the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for
money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice. "By money claims, is
meant any claim for 'money, debt, or interest thereon,' according to section 21 of Rule 3 and section 1 of Rule
88. Not all money claims may, however, be presented, but only those which are proper against the
decedent, that is, claims upon a liability contracted by the decedent before his death. Accordingly,
claims arising after his death cannot thus be presented, except funeral expenses."

The Court finds no valid reason to reverse the order appealed from on the following grounds:

1. he claim in question arose after the death of the decedent; and


2. the claim is not for money, debt, or interest thereon but for 150 cavans of palay a year for 29
agricultural years (one agricultural year having elapsed before the death of Raymundo Melliza). Even if
it wanted to, the probate court could not determine in advance the value of the palay in money because
the price of palay varies from year to year.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

You might also like