G.R. No. L-18403 September 30, 1961
As special defenses, he interposed —
IN RE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF PASCUAL
VILLANUEVA. MAURICIA G. DE VILLANUEVA,petitioner,
vs.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, defendant-appellant.
NATURE OF THE ACTION: A case certified by the Court of Appeals
on the ground that the issues involved are purely of law.
FACTS:
Pascual Villanueva, the widow Mauricia G. Villanueva, petitioned the
CFI of Agusan, for letters of Administration
 Other heirs while agreeing to the placing of estate under
administration, opposed the appointment the widow.
 Atty. Teodulo R. Ricaforte entered upon the performance of
his duties as administrator
Clerk of the Agusan CFI, issued Notice to Creditors
 Publication thru the Morning Times of City, a newspaper of
general circulation, on Nov. 16, 23 and 30, 1950, which
expired on November 16, 1951.
PNB filed a Creditor's Claim
 Original amount: P600.00
 10% interest: 747.45
 Total due: P1,347.45
 Due demandable since Dec. 20, 1940
PNB filed a Motion for Admission of claim, stating —
 That the Philippine National Bank filed its claim dated July
20, 1953;
 That the last action taken on the claim was an ordered this
Honorable Court issued on March 20, 1954, transferring the
hearing of the claim until the next calendar of the court,
without objection of the administrator;
 That the administrator has not answered the claim nor
denied the same.1awphîl.nèt
Administrator: Opposed alleging that he had no knowledge of such.
 That the same indebtedness, if it existed, has already been
paid;
 Barred by the statute of limitations, for more than ten (10)
Years have elapsed since the cause of action accrued up to
present time;
 That the said claim is barred forever on the ground that
notice to creditors having been published in the MORNING
TIMES of Cebu City, a newspaper of general circulation in
on November 16, 23 and 30, 1950, ... the Philippine National
Bank failed to file its claim within the time limited in the
notice, ....
PNB: On November 14, 1958, more than four (4) Years after the
opposition of the claim presented by the administrator, filed a
pleading captioned "Petition for an Extension of time within which to
File the Claim of Philippine National Bank", alleging, among others,
that Sec. 2, Rule 87 of the Rules, allows the filing of claims even if
the period stated in the notice to creditors elapsed:
 upon cause shown and on such terms as equitable;
 that its failure to present the claiming with the period stated
in the notice, was its lack of knowledge of administration
proceedings, for while said maintains a branch office in
Agusan, the employees did not come to know of the
proceedings, the notice has been published in the Morning
Times, a newspaper very limited circulation.
CFI: Barred by the statute of limitations
 Claim was due and demandable since December 20, 1940
 Filed on July 20, 1953, after the expiration of ten years,
considering that said filing was furthermore not present court
within the period fixed by Sec. 2, Rule 87 of the Rules of
Court,
 No reason having been shown to justify the extension of time
for its filing, the Court resolves to deny the petition for an
extension of time for filing of the claim by the PNB
 Failure of the Bank to present on time the claim was due its
own fault and can hardly be considered excusable
negligence.
PNB:
  Filed an MR arguing that the statute of limitations had been
suspended by the Moratorium Law,
 And that the courts can extend the period limited in the
notice, under special circumstances, and on grounds of
equity (Velasquez v. Teod 46 Phil. 757).
 Special circumstances to warrant the of the extension to
present the claim:
o The lack of knowledge of the pendency of the
administration proceedings;
o the legitimacy of the loan secured the deceased;
o that when it filed the claim, it did know that the
period stated in the notice had already expired.
 Supposed lack of knowledge of the proceedings on the part
of appellant and its employees had been belied by
uncontested and eloquent evidence, consisting of a deposit
of an amount of money by the administrator Of the estate in
said Bank (Agusan Agency).
o The deposit was made on December 1, 1951, inspite
of which the appellant Bank only filed its claim on
July 20, 1953.
 Lower court did not find any justifiable reason to give the
extension and for one thing, there was no period to extend,
the same had elapsed.
 No need to discuss issue on Moratorium Law

CFI: DECISION: CA AFFIRMED

 Filing of money claim on July 20, 1953 in the Office of the

Clerk of Court did not suspend running of the period of
prescription because said claim was filed out of time and
therefore invalid for all legal purposes.
 PNB had knowledge of the present administration
proceedings long before July 20, 1953, because the second
payment of the claim due to the deceased Pascual
Villanueva from the Philippine War Damage Commission in
the amount of P6,441.30, was deposited in the Agusan
Agency of the Bank in June, 1951.
 MR denied

ISSUE:

Whether or not the in question is already barred.

HELD:

Claim was filed outside of the period provided for in the Order of the
lower court, within which to present claims against the estate.

 The period fixed in the notice lapsed on November 16, 1951

 Claim was filed on July 20, 1953 or about 1 year and 8
months late.
 Petition for Letters of Administration and the Notice to
Creditors were duly published in the:
o Manila Daily Bulletin
o Morning Times, respectively