5/7/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 105

[No. L-12302. April 13, 1959]

Rio Y COMPANIA (Successor to Rio Y OLABARRIETA), plaintiff

and appellant, s. ELVIRA MASLOG, ETC., ET AL. defendants
and appellees.

1. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS;

MONEY CLAIMS; WHEN TO BE FILED. Mone claims
against the decedent, arising from contract, do not s r i e and m st
be led promptl against the estate of the deceased debtor.
(Sections 2 and 5 R le 87). The la strictl req ires the prompt
presentation and disposition of claims against the decedent's estate
in order to settle the affairs of the estate as soon as possible, pa off
its debts and distrib te the resid e "to the persons entitled thereto
itho t their being after ards called pon to respond in actions for
claims, hich, nder the ordinar stat te of limitations ha e not et
prescribed." (Tan Sen G an . Go Si San, 47 Phil., 96.)

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; LIMITATION ON RULES OF PRESCRIPTION.

Section 5, R le 87 of the R les of Co rt constit tes a special
limitation that o errides the ordinar r les of prescription.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CLAIMS BARRED. The appellant compan , in

spite of its kno ledge of the debtor's death and the e istence of the
latter's obligation, did not take steps to instit te administration
proceedings or collect the debt ntil more than 12 ears had elapsed
from the death of the decedent. Held: In consonance ith the
aforesaid polic , appellant compan is g ilt of laches and its claim
prescribes.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; MORATORIUM NOT A GOOD EXCUSE FOR

DELAYED FILING. The moratori m does not constit te a good
e c se for dela ing the ling of mone claims against the deceased
and the conseq ent speed settlement and distrib tion of his estate.
"The general objecti e of the moratori m la , hich is
rehabilitation of debtors, m st gi e a to the more rgent
necessit of settling the estate of a decedent and distrib ting its
resid e among his heirs as soon as possible, thereb minimi ing, if
not a oiding altogether e penses of administration." (Jison .
Warner Barnes & Co. Ltd., 48 Off. Ga . No. 9, p. 3873).

. a. . / a / /00000179466 5778 82 003600 002 009 / /? =Fa 1/5

5/7/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 105

APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of Pala an.

Bocar, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court

453

L. 105, A IL 13, 1959 453

Ri C a ia . Ma g, e c., e a .

Jos G. Flores for the plaintiff and appellant.

Perfec o de los Re es for defendants and appellees.

REYES, J. B. L., J.:

The facts of this case ma be summari ed as follo s: On Januar

15, 1939, Rio Olabarrieta (predecessor-ininterest of appellant Rio
Compania) and the late Anastacio Manalo, father of the defendant-
appellee Elvira Maslog, entered into a "Contrato de Servicios
Personales" herein the personal services of Anastacio Manalo ere
engaged b plaintiff-appellant for the administration and
e ploitation of its forest concession. Under the contract, plaintiff-
appellant as to e tend to agent Manalo a credit not e ceeding
P5,000.00 ith interest at 9% per annum. On Ma 30, 1941,
Anastacio Manalo died intestate at Puerto Princesa, Pala an. Elvira
Maslog carried on the account of her late father and made pa ments
thereon up to December 31, 1941. As of December 31, 1941, the
balance of the account stood at P18,614.58 due and o ing to
plaintiff-appellant. On Januar 29, 1954, plaintiffappellant led a
complaint ith the Court of First Instance of Pala an for the
recover of said amount from Elvira Maslog (joined ith her
husband) in her capacit as her father's onl heir, because through an
af davit of e trajudicial settlement of November 19, 1953 she had
adjudicated to herself all the properties of the late Anastacio
Manalo. Before the case as set for hearing, defendantsappellees
led a motion to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that the cause
of action has alread prescribed. The trial court rendered a decision,
holding that the complaint as led late and consequentl dismissed
the same. Whereupon the creditor plaintiff appealed to this Court.
We nd it unnecessar to discuss in detail the various errors
assigned b plaintiff-appellant for it is apparent that this action has
become barred through the laches of appellant compan .

454

454 HILI I E E A A ED
Ri C a ia . Ma g, e c., e a .

. a. . / a / /00000179466 5778 82 003600 002 009 / /? =Fa 2/5

5/7/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 105

It is admitted that Anastacio Manalo died intestate, and at the time

of his death at Puerto Princesa, Pala an, on Ma 30, 1941, he had
an outstanding obligation in plaintiff-appellant's favor in the total
sum of P18,614.58. This claim, being for mone and arising from
contract, did not survive and should have been led promptl
against the estate of the deceased debtor (Secs. 2 and 5, Rule 87).
Plaintiff-appellant as a are of the death of Anastacio Manalo on
said date, and it is not claimed that Rio Compa ia (successor to the
original creditor) did not kno the e istence of Manalo's obligation.
As a creditor, it as appellant's dut to present its claim ithin a
reasonable time after Anastacio Manalo's death in the estate
proceedings, and if none ere had to le a petition for letters of
administration, as authori ed b sec. 6(b) of Rule 79. But in spite of
the creditor's kno ledge of the debtor's death on Ma 30, 1941 and
its a areness of the e istence of the obligation, it did not take steps
to institute administration proceedings, or collect the debt in
question until Januar 29, 1954, more than 12 ears from the death
of the decedent.
The la strictl requires the prompt presentation and disposition
of claims against the decedent's estate in order to settle the affairs of
the estate as soon as possible, pa off its debts and distribute the
residue. In the case of Tan Sen Guan s. Ga Siu San, 47 Phil., 96,
this Court held:

"The p rpose of the r le is to settle the affairs of the estate ith dispatch, so
that the resid e ma be deli ered to the persons entitled thereto itho t
their being after ards called pon to respond in actions for claims, hich
nder the ordinar stat te of limitations, ha e not et prescribed."
"The p rpose of the la in ing a de nite period ithin hich claims
against an estate of a deceased person m st be presented is to ins re a
speed settlement of the estate and the earl distrib tion and deli er of the
propert to the persons ho are legall entitled to recei e. The settlement
and distrib tion of the estate of deceased persons sho ld not be
nnecessaril dela ed

455

VOL. 105, APRIL 13, 1959 455

Rio Compania . Ma log, e c., e al.

b the letharg and negligence of those ho ha e a direct interest in the

same." (In re Estate of Tangco 39 Phil., 967-968.)

In consonance ith this polic , it has been held that

"Where a creditor, kno ing of a debtor's death and the fact that no
administrator is appointed allo s three ears to elapse itho t asking for
the appointment of an administrator or instit te intestate proceedings in the
competent co rt he is g ilt of laches and his claim prescribes." (Sikat .

. a. . / a / /00000179466 5778 82 003600 002 009 / /? =Fa 3/5

5/7/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 105

Villan e a, 57 Phil., 486; Ch aka & Co. . Oh Tiong Keng's Heirs, 62

Phil., 883; Magban a . Akol, 72 Phil., 567).
"To hold other ise o ld be to permit a creditor ha ing kno ledge of
his debtor's death to keep the latter's estate in s spense inde nitel , b not
instit ting either testate or intestate proceedings in order to present his
claim, to the prej dice of the heirs and legatees." (Sikat . Vda. de
Villan e a, p a.)

The fact that the obligation arose from a ritten contract, ith a
prescriptive period of ten ears is irrelevant to the polic of speed
liquidation of decedent's estates. Chief Justice Moran, has noted that
Sec. 5, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, constitutes a special limitation
that overrides the ordinar rules of prescription:

"Under this pro ision, not onl claims d e, b t also claims not d e or
contingent, sho ld be led other ise the are barred fore er. So that e en
here a claim arises pon a ritten contract and, therefore its period of
limitation is ten ears, if the debtor dies, s ch claim sho ld be presented in
the estate or intestate proceeding of the deceased debtor ithin the time
ed b the co rt, other ise it is barred. * * *". (Moran, Commentaries on
the R les of Co rt Vol. II, 1952 ed., p. 436.)

Nor does the mora ori m constitute a good e cuse for dela ing the
ling of this appellant's claim, and the consequent speed settlement
of the debtor's estate and deliver of the net residue "to the persons
entitled thereto ithout their being after ards called to respond in
actions for claims hich, under the ordinar statute of limitations
have not et prescribed." (Moran, Commentaries on the Rules of
Court, Vol. II [3rd Ed] p. 400.)

456

456 HILI I E E A A ED
B aga a, e a . . De Vi a, Ab i e

We have heretofore ruled that

"The general objecti e of the moratori m la , hich is rehabilitation of

debtors, m st gi e a to the more rgent necessit of settling the estate of
a decedent and distrib ting its resid e among his heirs as soon as possible
thereb minimi ing if not a oiding altogether, e penses of administration."
(Jison . Warner, Barnes & Co. Ltd., 89 Phil., 239; 48 Off. Ga . No. 9, p.
3873.)

It appearing that more than 12 ears had elapsed from the death of
Anastacio Manalo before a complaint as led to recover the
indebtedness of the deceased and ithout the ling of an intestate
proceedings in the court, the plaintiff-appellant's action is no
barred and as correctl dismissed b the court belo .

. a. . / a / /00000179466 5778 82 003600 002 009 / /? =Fa 4/5

5/7/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 105

Wherefore, the order appealed from is af rmed. Costs against

appellant. So ordered.

Par s, C. J., Beng on, Padilla, Mon ema or, Ba is a Angelo,

Labrador, Concepci n and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Order af rmed.

C g 2021 Ce a B S , I c. A g e e ed.

. a. . / a / /00000179466 5778 82 003600 002 009 / /? =Fa 5/5