VOL.
540, DECEMBER 13, 111
2007
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
G.R. No. 157912. December 13, 2007. *
ALAN JOSEPH A. SHEKER, petitioner, vs. ESTATE OF ALICE O.
SHEKER, VICTORIA S. MEDINA—Administratrix, respondent.
Actions; Special Proceedings; Special provisions under Part II of the Rules of
Court govern special proceedings, but in the absence of special provisions, the rules
provided for in Part I of the Rules governing ordinary civil actions shall be applicable
to special proceedings, as far as practicable.—The petition is imbued with merit.
However, it must be emphasized that petitioner’s contention that rules in ordinary
actions are only supplementary to rules in special proceedings is not entirely correct.
Section 2, Rule 72, Part II of the same Rules of Court provides: Sec. 2. Applicability
of Rules of Civil Actions.—In the absence of special provisions, the rules
provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special
proceedings. Stated differently, special provisions under Part II of the Rules of Court
govern special proceedings; but in the absence of special provisions, the rules
provided for in Part I of the Rules governing ordinary civil actions shall be
applicable to special proceedings, as far as practicable.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; “Practicable,” Defined; In the absence of
special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as
much as possible and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said
proceedings.—The word “practicable” is defined as: possible to practice or perform;
capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished. This means that in the
absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in special
proceedings as much as possible and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to
said proceedings. Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules
in ordinary actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to special proceedings.
Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-forum shopping for
complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written explanation for non-personal service
and filing, and the payment of filing fees for money claims against an estate would
not in any way obstruct pro-
_______________
*THIRD DIVISION.
112
1 SUPREME COURT
12 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
bate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special proceedings such as the
settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in the present case.
Same; Same; Probate Proceedings; Pleadings and Practice; Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping; The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for
complaints and other initiatory plead-ings—a contingent money claim against the
estate of a decedent is not an initiatory pleading; A probate proceeding is initiated
upon the filing of the petition for allowance of the decedent’s will; A contingent money
claim, not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against non-
forum shopping.—The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for
complaints and other initiatory pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent
money claim against the estate of a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the present
case, the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for
allowance of the decedent’s will. Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of
Court, after granting letters of testamentary or of administration, all persons having
money claims against the decedent are mandated to file or notify the court and the
estate administrator of their respective money claims; otherwise, they would be
barred, subject to certain exceptions. Such being the case, a money claim against an
estate is more akin to a motion for creditors’ claims to be recognized and taken into
consideration in the proper disposition of the properties of the estate. In Arquiza v.
Court of Appeals, 459 SCRA 753 (2005) the Court explained thus: x x x The office of
a motion is not to initiate new litigation, but to bring a material but
incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion is
filed. A motion is not an independent right or remedy, but is confined to
incidental matters in the progress of a cause. It relates to some question that is
collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with and
dependent upon the principal remedy. (Emphasis supplied) A money claim is
only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the decedent’s
estate; more so if the claim is contingent since the claimant cannot even institute a
separate action for a mere contingent claim. Hence, herein petitioner’s
contingent money claim, not being an initiatory pleading, does not require
a certification against non-forum shopping.
113
VOL. 540, 1
DECEMBER 13, 2007 13
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
Same; Same; Same; Same; Filing Fees; Non-payment of filing fees for a money
claim against the estate is not one of the grounds for dismissing a money claim
against the estate.—On the issue of filing fees, the Court ruled in Pascual v. Court of
Appeals, 300 SCRA 214 (1998), that the trial court has jurisdiction to act on a money
claim (attorney’s fees) against an estate for services rendered by a lawyer to the
administratrix to assist her in fulfilling her duties to the estate even without
payment of separate docket fees because the filing fees shall constitute a lien on the
judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, or the trial court
may order the payment of such filing fees within a reasonable time. After all, the
trial court had already assumed jurisdiction over the action for settlement of the
estate. Clearly, therefore, non-payment of filing fees for a money claim against the
estate is not one of the grounds for dismissing a money claim against the estate.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Service of Pleadings; Personal Service; Personal
service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and filing,
the exception; Whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in light of the
circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory.—
With regard to the requirement of a written explanation, Maceda v. De Guzman
Vda. de Macatangay, 481 SCRA 415 (2006) is squarely in point. Therein, the Court
held thus: x x x If only to underscore the mandatory nature of this innovation to our
set of adjective rules requiring personal service whenever practicable, Section 11 of
Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion to consider a pleading or paper
as not filed if the other modes of service or filing were not resorted to and
no written explanation was made as to why personal service was not done
in the first place.The exercise of discretion must, necessarily consider the
practicability of personal service, for Section 11 itself begins with the clause
“whenever practicable.” We thus take this opportunity to clarify that under
Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service
and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is
practicable, in the light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal
service or filing is mandatory.
114
1 SUPREME COURT
14 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
Same; Same; Same; The ruling spirit of the probate law is the speedy settlement
of estates of deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to residue
by way of inheritance or legacy after the debts and expenses of administration have
been paid.—The ruling spirit of the probate law is the speedy settlement of estates of
deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to residue by way of
inheritance or legacy after the debts and expenses of administration have been paid.
The ultimate purpose for the rule on money claims was further explained in Union
Bank of the Phil. v. Santibañez, 452 SCRA 228 (2005) thus: The filing of a money
claim against the decedent’s estate in the probate court is mandatory. As we held in
the vintage case of Py Eng Chong v. Herrera, 70 SCRA 130 (1976): x x x 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 the 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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the order and omnibus order of the
Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 6.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Generalao Law Officefor respondent.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the
Order of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 6 (RTC) dated
1
January 15, 2003 and its Omnibus Order dated April 9, 2003.
_______________
1 Penned by Presiding Judge Valerio M. Salazar, Rollo, pp. 35 and 40.
115
VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 115
2007
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
The undisputed facts are as follows.
The RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice O. Sheker and
thereafter issued an order for all the creditors to file their respective claims
against the estate. In compliance therewith, petitioner filed on October 7,
2002 a contingent claim for agent’s commission due him amounting to
approximately P206,250.00 in the event of the sale of certain parcels of land
belonging to the estate, and the amount of P275,000.00, as reimbursement for
expenses incurred and/or to be incurred by petitioner in the course of
negotiating the sale of said realties.
The executrix of the Estate of Alice O. Sheker (respondent) moved for the
dismissal of said money claim against the estate on the grounds that (1) the
requisite docket fee, as prescribed in Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, had not been paid; (2) petitioner failed to attach a certification against
non-forum shopping; and (3) petitioner failed to attach a written explanation
why the money claim was not filed and served personally.
On January 15, 2003, the RTC issued the assailed Order dismissing
without prejudice the money claim based on the grounds advanced by
respondent. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied per Omnibus
Order dated April 9, 2003.
Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari, raising
the following questions:
1. (a)must a contingent claim filed in the probate proceeding contain a
certification against non-forum shopping, failing which such claim
should be dismissed?
2. (b)must a contingent claim filed against an estate in a pro-bate
proceeding be dismissed for failing to pay the docket fees at the time
of its filing thereat?
116
116 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
1. (c)must a contingent claim filed in a probate proceeding be dismissed
because of its failure to contain a written explanation on the service
and filing by registered mail? 2
Petitioner maintains that the RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate
proceeding the rules requiring a certification of non-forum shopping, a
written explanation for non-personal filing, and the payment of docket fees
upon filing of the claim. He insists that Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of
Court provides that rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special
proceedings only in a suppletory manner.
The Court gave due course to the petition for review on cer-tiorarialthough
directly filed with this Court, pursuant to Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court. 3
The petition is imbued with merit.
However, it must be emphasized that petitioner’s contention that rules in
ordinary actions are only supplementary to rules in special proceedings is not
entirely correct.
Section 2, Rule 72, Part II of the same Rules of Court provides:
“Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of Civil Actions.—In the absence of special provisions, the rules
provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceed-ings.”
Stated differently, special provisions under Part II of the Rules of Court
govern special proceedings; but in the absence
_______________
2 Rollo, pp. 12-13.
3 RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, Sec. 2(c).
Sec. 2. Modes of appeal.—
xxxx
(c) Appeal by certiorari.—In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme
Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.
117
VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 117
2007
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
of special provisions, the rules provided for in Part I of the Rules governing
ordinary civil actions shall be applicable to special proceedings, as far as
practicable.
The word “practicable” is defined as: possible to practice or perform;
capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished. This means that in 4
the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in
special proceedings as much as possible and where doing so would not pose
an obstacle to said proceedings. Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it
categorically say that rules in ordinary actions are inapplicable or merely
suppletory to special proceedings. Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a
certification of non-forum shopping for complaints and initiatory plead-
ings, a written explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the
payment of filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any
way obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special
proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in
the present case.
Thus, the principal question in the present case is: did the RTC err in
dismissing petitioner’s contingent money claim against respondent estate for
failure of petitioner to attach to his motion a certification against non-forum
shopping?
The Court rules in the affirmative.
The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints
and other initiatory pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent
money claim against the estate of a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the
present case, the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon the
filing of the petition for allowance of the decedent’s will. Under
Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, after granting letters of
testamentary or of administration, all persons having money claims against
the decedent are mandated to file or notify the court and the estate
administrator
_______________
4 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, p. 1780.
118
118 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
of their respective money claims; otherwise, they would be barred, subject to
certain exceptions. 5
Such being the case, a money claim against an estate is more akin to a
motion for creditors’ claims to be recognized and taken into consideration in
the proper disposition of the properties of the estate. In Arquiza v. Court of
Appeals,6the Court explained thus:
“x x x The office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation, but to bring a material but
incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion is filed. A motion
is not an independent right or remedy, but is confined to incidental matters in the progress of a
cause. It relates to some question that is collateral to the main object of the action and is
_______________
5 RULES OF COURT, RULE 86, Sec. 5.
Sec. 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
expenses 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 counter-claims 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 claims had been presented directly before the court in the administration proceedings.
Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be approved at the present value.
6 G.R. No. 160479, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 753.
119
VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 119
2007
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy.” (Emphasis supplied) 7
A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the
settlement of the decedent’s estate; more so if the claim is contingent since
the claimant cannot even institute a separate action for a mere contingent
claim. Hence, herein petitioner’s contingent money claim, not being
an initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against non-
forum shopping.
On the issue of filing fees, the Court ruled in Pascual v. Court of
Appeals, that the trial court has jurisdiction to act on a money claim
8
(attorney’s fees) against an estate for services rendered by a lawyer to the
administratrix to assist her in fulfilling her duties to the estate even without
payment of separate docket fees because the filing fees shall constitute a lien
on the judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, or the
trial court may order the payment of such filing fees within a reasonable
time. After all, the trial court had already assumed jurisdiction over the
9
action for settlement of the estate. Clearly, therefore, non-payment of filing
fees for a money claim against the estate is not one of the grounds for
dismissing a money claim against the estate. With regard to the requirement
of a written explanation, Maceda v. De Guzman Vda. de Macatangay is 10
squarely in point. Therein, the Court held thus:
“In Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Ricafort, this Court, passing upon Section 11 of Rule 13 of the
Rules of Court, held that a court has the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if said
rule is not complied with.
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 762-763.
8 G.R. No. 120575, December 16, 1998, 300 SCRA 214.
9 Pascual v. Court of Appeals, supra note 8, at pp. 228-229.
10 G.R. No. 164947, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 415.
120
120 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
Personal service and filing are preferred for obvious reasons. Plainly, such should expedite action or
resolution on a pleading, motion or other paper; and conversely, minimize, if not eliminate, delays
likely to be incurred if service or filing is done by mail, considering the inefficiency of the postal service.
Likewise, personal service will do away with the practice of some lawyers who, wanting to appear
clever, resort to the following less than ethical practices: (1) serving or filing pleadings by mail to catch
opposing counsel off-guard, thus leaving the latter with little or no time to prepare, for instance,
responsive pleadings or an opposition; or (2) upon receiving notice from the post office that the
registered mail containing the pleading of or other paper from the adverse party may be claimed,
unduly procrastinating before claiming the parcel, or, worse, not claiming it at all, thereby causing
undue delay in the disposition of such pleading or other papers.
If only to underscore the mandatory nature of this innovation to our set of adjective rules requiring
personal service whenever practicable, Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion to
consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing were not
resorted to and no written explanation was made as to why personal service was not done
in the first place.The exercise of discretion must, necessarily consider the practicability of
personal service, for Section 11 itself begins with the clause “whenever practicable.”
We thus take this opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and
filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in the light of the
circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when personal
service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied
by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with. In
adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the
subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading
sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
121
VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 121
2007
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
In Musa v. Amor, this Court, on noting the impracticality of personal service, exercised its discretion
and liberally applied Section 11 of Rule 13:
“As [Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court] requires, service and filing of pleadings must be done personally
whenever practicable. The court notes that in the present case, personal service would not be
practicable. Considering the distance between the Court of Appeals and Donsol, Sorsogonwhere the
petition was posted, clearly, service by registered mail [sic] would have entailed considerable time, effort
and expense. A written explanation why service was not done personally might have been superfluous. In
any case, as the rule is so worded with the use of “may,” signifying permissiveness, a violation thereof
gives the court discretion whether or not to consider the paper as not filed. While it is true that
procedural rules are necessary to secure an orderly and speedy administration of justice, rigid
application of Section 11, Rule 13 may be relaxed in this case in the interest of substantial
justice. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
In the case at bar, the address of respondent’s counsel is Lopez, Quezon, while petitioner Sonia’s
counsel’s is Lucena City. Lopez, Quezon is 83 kilometers away from Lucena City. Such distance makes
personal service impracticable. As in Musa v. Amor, a written explanation why service was not done
personally “might have been superfluous.”
As this Court held in Tan v. Court of Appeals, liberal construction of a rule of procedure has been
allowed where, among other cases, “the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the
degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.” (Emphasis supplied)
11
In the present case, petitioner holds office in Salcedo Village, Makati City,
while counsel for respondent and the RTC which rendered the assailed orders
are both in Iligan City. The lower court should have taken judicial notice of
the great
_______________
11 Maceda v. De Guzman Vda. de Macatangay, supra note 10, at pp. 423-425.
122
122 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
distance between said cities and realized that it is indeed not practicable to
serve and file the money claim personally. Thus, following Medina v. Court of
Appeals, the failure of petitioner to submit a written explanation why service
12
has not been done personally, may be considered as superfluous and the RTC
should have exercised its discretion under Section 11, Rule 13, not to dismiss
the money claim of petitioner, in the interest of substantial justice.
The ruling spirit of the probate law is the speedy settlement of estates of
deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to residue by
way of inheritance or legacy after the debts and expenses of administration
have been paid. The ultimate purpose for the rule on money claims was
13
further explained in Union Bank of the Phil. v. Santibañez, thus: 14
“The filing of a money claim against the decedent’s estate in the probate court is mandatory. As we held
in the vintage case of Py Eng Chong v. Herrera:
x x x 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 the 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.” (Emphasis supplied)
15
_______________
12 Medina v. Court of Appeals, No. L-34760, September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 206.
13 Medina v. Court of Appeals, supra note 12, at p. 215.
14 G.R. No. 149926, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 228.
15 Union Bank of the Phils. v. Santibañez, Id., at pp. 240-241.
123
VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 123
2007
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O.
Sheker
The RTC should have relaxed and liberally construed the procedural rule on
the requirement of a written explanation for non-personal service, again in
the interest of substantial justice.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders of the Regional
Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 6 dated January 15, 2003 and April 9,
2003, respectively, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial
Court of Iligan City, Branch 6, is hereby DIRECTED to give due course and
take appropriate action on petitioner’s money claim in accordance with Rule
82 of the Rules of Court.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago(Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Nachura and Reyes,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted, orders reversed and set aside.
Notes.—While the requirement as to certificate of non-forum shopping is
mandatory, nonetheless the requirement must not be interpreted too literally
and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum-
shopping. (Bernardo vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 255 SCRA
108[1996])
Failure to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, and
failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused by the fact that
plaintiff is not guilty of forum shopping. (Melo vs. Court of Appeals, 318
SCRA 94 [1999])
The jurisdiction of the probate court merely relates to matters having to do
with the settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of deceased persons,
and the appointment and removal of administrators, executors, guardians
and trustees. (Heirs of Oscar R. Reyes vs. Reyes, 345 SCRA 541 [2000])
An order of the trial court appointing a regular administrator of a
deceased person’s estate is a final determination of
124
124 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Natividad vs. Movie and Television
Review and Classification Board
(MTRCB)
the rights of the parties thereunder, and is thus, appealable. (Testate Estate
of Maria Manuel Vda. de Biascan vs. Biascan, 347 SCRA 621 [2000])
——o0o——
