Velasquez vs. William George G.R. No. L-62376 October 27, 1983

FACTS:

Maria Velasquez Vda. De George and her children appealed from the decision of the CFI of Bulacan, which dismissed their complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are the widow and legitimate children of the late Benjamin George whose estate is under intestate

Lopez vs. Olbes G.R. No. 5480 March 21, 1910

FACTS:

On October 13, 1908, Ricardo Lopez et al. brought suit against Adolfo Olbes, the testamentary executor of the deceased Martina Lopez (the mother of Ricardo and grandmother of the other plaintiffs), alleging in their complaint that Martina executed a

Romualdez vs Tiglao G.R. No. L-51151 July 24, 1981

FACTS:

Paz Romualdez and others sued Antonio Tiglao and his sureties (including Felisa Tiglao) in 1960 for the payment of unpaid rentals for the lease of a hacienda and its sugar quota. CFI Rizal decided in favor of Romualdez adjudging Tiglao et al liable for 22k.

A writ of attachment was issued but the judgment was not satisfied. Romualdez sought the revival of the judgment in 1970. When this was files, Felisa was already dead; therefore, her estate was made a defendant represented by the Special Administratrix Maningning Tiglao-Naguiat. Maningning filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that under Sec. 1 of Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, "No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator.” The lower court nevertheless granted the revival.

An appeal is taken by the estate of Felisa.

ISSUE:

Whether the action for revival was proper instead of presenting the claim in the Special Proceeding in the settlement of Felisa’s estate

HELD:

The action for revival was proper.

Estate of Felisa: The present action is one for the recovery of a sum of money so that it is barred by Sec. 1 of Rule 87 of the Rules of Court and that the remedy of Romualdez et al is to present their claim in Special Proc. No. Q-10731 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

SC: The original judgment, which was rendered on May 31, 1960, has become stale because of its non-execution after the lapse of five years (Sec. 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).

Accordingly, it cannot be presented against the Estate of Felisa Tiglao unless it is first revived by action. This is precisely why Romualdez et al have instituted the second suit whose object is not to make the Estate of Felisa Tiglao pay the sums of money adjudged in the first judgment but merely to keep alive said judgment so that the sums therein awarded can be presented as claims against the estate in Special Proc. No. Q-10731 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

Separate Opinion:

Aquino, concurring: It is true that, as a general rule, "no action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator" because the creditor's remedy is to file the proper claim in the proceeding for the settlement of the deceased debtor's estate within the period fixed in the Statute of Nonclaims (Secs. 2 and 5, Rule 86 and sec. 1, Rule 87, Rules of Court).

However, what makes this an exception is that when the ten-year period for enforcing the first judgment against the Tiglaos was about to expire, there was as yet no notice to creditors in Special Proceeding No. Q-10731 and no regular administrator had been appointed. Hence, the judgment creditors could not file a claim against the testate estate for the amount of the unsatisfied judgment.

Doctrine/s:

A judgment which became stale must first be revived before it can be presented as a claim against the estate.

Exception to Sec. 1 of Rule 87: When no administrator has been appointed yet and the ten-year period for enforcing a judgment is about to expire

Dispositive: Appeal dismissed.

Digested by: Compuesto