Dear PAO,

Elias was indebted to me for a certain amount of money. He failed to pay his debt prior to his demise. I talked to one of his children and he told me that they are willing to settle the obligation of their father. However, I was told to file my claim in the probate proceedings since Elias left a will that needs to be probated. According to Elias’ children, such a remedy is mandatory. Is it mandatory to file my claim in the probate proceedings? I think that it will be easier for me to collect directly from the heirs.

Basilio

Dear Basilio,

The unpaid debt of Elias to you can be classified as money claims against the estate in consonance with Section 5, Rule 86 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, as amended;

“Section 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed, barred; exceptions. – 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 expense for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited 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. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in such action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim had been presented directly before the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be approved at their present value.”

Relative thereto, it is mandatory to file the money claims in the settlement of estate, and the reason was fully explained in the case of Py Eng Chong v. Hon. Herrera and So De Chiat & Sons, GR L-31229, March 25, 1976, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Felix Antonio, stated:

“The above-quoted provision is mandatory. This requirement is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased by informing the executor or administrator 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. The plain and obvious design of the rule is the speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the property to the distributees, legatees, or heirs. ‘The law strictly 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, pay off its debts and distribute the residue.'”

Considering that Elias left a will, the same must be probated in court. The mandatory character and purpose of a probate proceeding were elaborated in Dorotheo v. Court of Appeals, et al., GR 108581, Dec. 8, 1999, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, said:

“It should be noted that probate proceedings deal generally with the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated, particularly on three aspects:

“– whether the will submitted is indeed, the decedent’s last will and testament;

“– compliance with the prescribed formalities for the execution of wills;

“– the testamentary capacity of the testator;

“– and the due execution of the last will and testament.

“Under the Civil Code, due execution includes a determination of whether the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of its execution, that he had freely executed the will and was not acting under duress, fraud, menace or undue influence and that the will is genuine and not a forgery, that he was of the proper testamentary age and that he is a person not expressly prohibited by law from making a will.xxx

“It can be clearly inferred from Article 960 of the Civil Code, on the law of successional rights that testacy is preferred to intestacy. But before there could be testate distribution, the will must pass the scrutinizing test and safeguards provided by law considering that the deceased testator is no longer available to prove the voluntariness of his actions, aside from the fact that the transfer of the estate is usually onerous in nature and that no one is presumed to give — Nemo praesumitur donare. No intestate distribution of the estate can be done until and unless the will had failed to pass both its extrinsic and intrinsic validity.”

Applying the afore-cited law and jurisprudence in your situation, the will left by Elias must first be probated. Further, you are required to file your money claim against the estate of Elias in the probate proceedings. This is required for the simple reason that there is a need to protect the estate of the deceased by informing the executor or administrator of the claim against it and by giving the court an opportunity to determine whether it should be allowed. The obvious design is the speedy settlement of the affairs of Elias by paying off its debts, and thereafter, delivering the residue to the heirs.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]