FACTS:
Danan died intestate and his wife was appointed as administratix of his estate.
The court issued an order directing all persons having money claims against the
estate to file them within 6 months after the date of the first publication of
the order (December10, 1973). On June 12, 1974, the Manalansans filed a
contingent claim. The administratix opposed only on January 8, 1981 the
contingent claim alleging that it was filed beyond the reglementary period
provided by law.
ISSUE:
WON the contingent claim is validly filed.
RULING:
YES. There is no question that the contingent
claim was filed 2 days beyond the six-month period stipulated in the order
which directed all persons having money claims against the estate to file them.
However, it is to be noted that the claim was filed on June 12, 1974, whereas
the timeliness of its filing was raised only on January 8, 1981, in the
Opposition to the Contingent Claim against Estate. In the interregnum the
administratrix had acquiesced to the entertainment of the claim by filing an
answer thereto on July 11, 1974, and again by asking for postponement of the
October 3, 1974, hearing wherein she was to present her rebuttal evidence. She
is not only estopped by her conduct but laches also bar her claim. Moreover,
Rule 86, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court gives the probate court discretion to
allow claims presented beyond the period previously fixed provided that they
are filed within one month from the expiration of such period but in no case
beyond the date of entry of the order of distribution. The contingent claim of
the Manalansans was filed within both periods.
No comments:
Post a Comment