G.R. No.
L-28298 November 25, 1983  Because of their failure to collect the said sum of
ROSITA SANTIAGO DE BAUTISTA, ET AL., plaintiffs-
appellees,
vs.
VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
DOCTRINE
 Section 5, rule 86 is a mandatory rule to be
complied with by anyone who claims against the
estate of a decedent. The requirement therein is for
the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased.
The executor or administrator is informed of the
claims against it, thus enabling him to examine
each claim and to determine whether it is a proper
one which should be allowed.
FACTS
 On May 10, 1952, Numeriano Bautista, husband
and father of the plaintiffs-appellees, respectively,
was a passenger of jeepney, owned and operated by
Rosendo de Guzman, deceased husband and father
of defendants-appellants.
 Eugenio Medrano y Torres was employed as a
driver of defendants’ jeepney. In one incident the
said driver in a negligent and reckless manner while
driving caused the passenger Numeriano Bautista
sustain physical injuries which eventually caused
his death.
 On May 12, 1952, Rosendo de Guzman died.
P3,000.00 from the driver, Eugenio Medrano,
plaintiffs-appellees filed a complaint against
defendants-appellants alleging, that they
demanded from Rosendo de Guzman and from the
defendants-appellants the payment of the sums of
P3,000.00 as subsidiary liability; P10,000.00 as
actual exemplary and moral damages and
Pl,000.00 as attorney's fees for the suit by reason of
the death of Numeriano Bautista
 The defendants refused to pay the claims of the
petitioner, instead filed a Motion to Dismiss which
was later sustained.
 Plaintiffs-appellees filed with the same trial court
against the same defendants a second complaint
with the same allegations, further alleging that
intestate proceedings of Rosendo de Guzman were
commenced in the same court, that on 20 April
1953 a project of partition was approved with the 5
heirs received P2294.05 each, and on 14 May 1953
the proceedings were closed. They further pray for
the P3k, an additional amount of P15k as moral,
exemplary and compensatory damages and P2k as
attorney’s fees.
 CFI ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs-
appellees damages and attys fees.
ISSUE
Whether or not the trial court erred in giving due
course to the complaint filed by the herein
plaintiffs
HELD – YES
RATIO
 Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court provides:
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 for the last sickness of the decedents, and
judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed
within the time in the notice; otherwise they are barred
forever; except that they may be set forth as
counterclaims in any action that the executor or
administrator may bring against the claimants ...
Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be approved at
their present value
 Section 5, Rule 86 is mandatory. The
requirement therein is for the purpose of
protecting the estate of the deceased. The
executor or administrator is informed of the
claims against it, thus enabling him to
examine each claim and to determine
whether it is a proper one which should be
allowed.
 Therefore, upon the dismiss of the first complaint
of herein plaintiffs-appellees should have presented
their claims before the intestate proceedings.
 Instead of doing so, however, they allowed said
proceedings to terminate and the properties to be
distributed to the heirs pursuant to a project of
partition before instituting this separate action.
 Thus, plaintiffs-appellees have lost their right to
recover because of negligence and a failure to
observe mandatory provisions of the law and the
Rules. They overlooked the fact that they were no
longer suing Rosendo de Guzman who died shortly
after the accident but his heirs.
 The only instance wherein a creditor can file an
action against a distributee of the debtor's asset is
under Section 5, Rule 88.
 Even under the above rule, the contingent claims
must first have been established and allowed in the
probate court before the creditors can file an action
directly, against the distributees.
 In the case at bar, complaint was filed after the
intestate proceedings had terminated and the estate
finally distributed to the heirs..
 Furthermore, even assuming that the
plaintiffs-appellees had no knowledge of the
intestate proceedings which is not
established, the law presumes that they had
such knowledge because the settlement of
estate is a proceeding in rem and therefore
the failure to file their claims before such
proceedings barred them from
subsequently filing the same claims outside
said proceedings.