Pizarro vs Consolacion the filing of creditors' claim against the said estate within the period of 6

G.R. No. 51278/ May 9, 1988/Gancayco, J./SPECPRO- CLAIMS AGAINST months from the date of the first publication.
ESTATE/MMBDELACRUZ  Private respondent and the City of Davao filed a joint motion asking
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari respondent court to take notice of their agreement which in substance
PETITIONERS Heirs of Ramon Pizarro, Sr. provides for an agreement to file a joint motion in the CFI of Davao to
RESPONDENTS Hon. Francisco Consolacion, Davao CFI, Luis Tan/ Chen Yeh- proceed with the determination of the heirs of the deceased Garcia which
an shall be determinative of their respective claims against the estate.
Petitioners filed their opposition to the said joint motion on the sole ground
SUMMARY. Luis Tan (son of deceased) filed petition with CFI for the issuance of letters of administration that it is without procedural basis.
in favor of Atilano and wanted to recover his dad’s land from the respondents. Heirs of Pizarro filed
opposition alleging that they own the land by virtue of an EJ settlement and absolute sale executed  Private respondent filed a motion to drop and exclude the petitioners on
by Vicente Tan. Both parties entered into a compromise agreement whereby petitioners agreed to the ground that they do not even claim to be the heirs of the deceased
withdraw their opposition. After the judicial administrator had qualified and his inventory of the assets Garcia and that the extrajud. deed of partition and deed of absolute sale
of the late Dominga Garcia was approved, the LC issued an order requiring the filing of creditors' claim
allegedly executed is spurious and simulated.
against the said estate within the period of six (6) months from the date of the first publication and
filed a motion for the determination of the heirs of the deceased. They also filed a motion to exclude  Petitioners filed their opposition to said motion. They likewise filed a claim
the petitioners on the ground that they do not even claim to be the heirs of the deceased Dominga against the estate of the deceased Garcia in the amount of P350,000.00
Garcia and that the extrajudicial deed of partition and deed of absolute sale allegedly in favor of the representing services allegedly rendered by their deceased father in favor
petitioners' deceased father is spurious. Petitioners opposed and even filed a claim against the estate
of the deceased Garcia in the amount of P350,000 representing services allegedly rendered by their of Vicente Tan.
deceased father in favor of Vicente Tan. Private respondent filed a reply to petitioners' opposition and  Private respondent filed a reply to petitioners' opposition and a motion to
a motion to strike out or dismiss the claim on the ground that it is spurious and barred for having been strike out or dismiss the claim on the ground that it is spurious and barred for
filed beyond the six (6) month period set in the notice for the filing of creditors' claim. SC ruled in favor
having been filed beyond the 6 month period set in the notice for the filing
of petitioners saying that the probate court is permitted by the rule to set the period provided it is not
less than six (6) months nor more than twelve (12) months from the date of the first publication of the of creditors' claim.
notice thereof. In this case the trial court set the period for the filing of the claims within six (6) months  Petitioners filed another claim against the estate for P200,000.00 allegedly
from the date of the first publication of the notice. It was obviously short of the minimum limit of six (6) advanced by their deceased father for the payment of realty and income
months provided for by the law. Petitioner correctly observed that the trial court thereby shortened
the period set by the law.
taxes of the said lot sometime in 1936, to which claim private respondent
DOCTRINE. Since the notice issued and the period set by the trial court was not in accordance with filed an opposition on the ground that it is barred for having been filed
the requirements of Section 2, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, what should then apply is the period as beyond the 6 month period and that it was merely intended to delay the
provided for by the rules which is not less than six months nor more than twelve months from the date
proceedings.
of first publication of notice.
 Respondent court dismissed both claims of the petitioners on the ground
FACTS.
that they are barred for having been filed out of time.
 Petitioners are the oppositors in SP No. 2116 in the Davao CFI for settlement
of the estate of deceased Dominga Garcia, filed by private respondent
ISSUES & RATIO.
Luis Tan alias Chen Yeh-An.
1. WON the claims were filed on time? YES.
 Luis Tan filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in favor
Pets: the filing of such claims should be for a period of 6 months starting from
of a certain Alfonso Atilano, alleging he is the only surviving son of Garcia
the 6th month after the date of the first publication of the notice down to the
who died intestate; that the deceased left a parcel of land in the possession
12th month. To require filing of claims within the 6th month from publication of
of the heirs of Ramon Pizarro, 2 petitioners herein.
notice will shorten the period in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section
 Petitioners filed an opposition to the said petition claiming that they are the
2, Rule 86.
heirs of Pizarro who died intestate; and that the deceased was the vendee
of 1/2 of the lot by virtue of an extrajud. settl. of estate and deed of absolute
SC: We agree. The range of the period specified in the rule is intended to give
sale executed by Tan. Petitioners prayed that letters of administration of
the probate court the discretion to fix the period for the filing of claims. The
Garcia's estate be issued in favor of anyone of them.
probate court is permitted by the rule to set the period provided it is not less
 The respondent court set the petition for hearing and this was duly
than six (6) months nor more than twelve (12) months from the date of the first
published in the Mindanao Times. The parties then entered into a
publication of the notice thereof. Such period once fixed by the court is
compromise whereby petitioners agreed to withdraw their opposition to
mandatory.
the appointment of private respondent's recommendee and for the
intestate proceedings to proceed in due course; approved by court.
Purpose: to insure a speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased person
 After the judicial administrator had qualified and his inventory of the assets
and the early delivery of the property to the person entitled to the same.
of the Garcia was approved, respondent court issued an order requiring
Since the notice issued and the period set by the trial court was not in
accordance with the requirements of Section 2, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court,
what should then apply is the period as provided for by the rules which is not
less than six months nor more than twelve months from the date of first
publication of notice. The first publication of the notice in the Mindanao Times
was on March 30, 1978. Thus the two claims of petitioners against the estate
which were filed on March 5, 1979 and March 29, 1979 respectively were filed
on time.

DECISION.
GRANTED.