Scribd
Upload
83 views2 pages

Sheker v. Sheker

Petitioner Sheker filed a contingent money claim against the estate of Alice Sheker for agent's commission and reimbursement of expenses. The executrix moved to dismiss the claim for failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping, provide a written explanation for non-personal filing, and pay docket fees. Petitioner argued that rules in ordinary actions only apply supplementary to special proceedings like probate cases. The RTC dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) rules in ordinary actions can apply to special proceedings as long as they do not obstruct the proceedings, and (2) a certificate of non-forum shopping is not required for money claims filed in probate cases.

Uploaded by

Rain Hofileña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
83 views2 pages

Sheker v. Sheker

Petitioner Sheker filed a contingent money claim against the estate of Alice Sheker for agent's commission and reimbursement of expenses. The executrix moved to dismiss the claim for failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping, provide a written explanation for non-personal filing, and pay docket fees. Petitioner argued that rules in ordinary actions only apply supplementary to special proceedings like probate cases. The RTC dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) rules in ordinary actions can apply to special proceedings as long as they do not obstruct the proceedings, and (2) a certificate of non-forum shopping is not required for money claims filed in probate cases.

Uploaded by

Rain Hofileña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Sheker vs.

Estate of Alice Sheker

-Regional Trial Court (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 PhP206,250.00 in
the event of the sale of certain parcels of land belonging to the estate, and the
amount of PhP 275,000 as reimbursement for expenses incurred and/or to be
incurred by petitioner in the course of negotiating the sale of said realties.
- The executrix moved for the dismissal of said money claim against the estate on
the grounds: (1) the requisite docket fee has not been paid, (2) petitioner failed
to attach a certification against forum shopping and (3) petitioner failed to attach
a written explanation why the money claim was not filed and served personally.

Petitioner maintains that the RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate


proceeding the rules requiring a certificate of non-forum shopping, a written
explanation for non-personal filing, and the payment of docket fees from filing of
the claim.  He insist that sec. 2, Rules 72 of the Rules of court provides that rules
in ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only in a suppletory
manner.

ISSUE:

(1) WON rules in ordinary actions are only supplementary to rules in special
proceedings?
(2) WON the RTC erred 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?

HELD:

(1) Sec.2, Rule 72, provides:  In the absences of special provisions, the
rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable,
applicable in special 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 maybe
applied in special proceedings as much as possible and where doing so
would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings.

No where in the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules in


ordinary actions are in applicable or merely suppletory to special
proceedings. Provisions of the RoC 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 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.

(2) The Court rules in the affirmative. The certification of non-forum


shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. In the
present case, the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the
petition for allowance of the decedent’s will. Under Sec 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the
RoC, 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 claims; otherwise, they
would be barred.

You might also like