GR L 14713; (March, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14713; April 28, 1960
Intestate Estate of ARSENIO R. AFAN, deceased. MARIAN AFAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. APOLINARIO S. DE GUZMAN, creditor-appellant.
FACTS
On July 12, 1957, Apolinario S. de Guzman filed a claim for P1,000 in the intestate estate proceedings of Arsenio R. Afan, based on a promissory note. The administratrix, Marian Afan, objected on July 22, 1957, because the claim was filed long after the expiration of the statutory period for presenting claims. The lower court issued an order on July 27, 1957, refusing to entertain the claim. De Guzman appealed, invoking Section 2, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, which allows a court to permit the filing of a claim after the lapse of the period but before distribution, under certain conditions. De Guzman argued his claim should be entertained as it was filed prior to distribution. The record shows De Guzman had actual knowledge of the estate proceedings as early as August 1955, evidenced by his involvement in a related civil case (Civil Case No. 1148) against Afan, where he was informed of the estate proceedings and even filed a compliance on January 24, 1956, listing Afan’s heirs as shown in the estate records. Despite this knowledge, he did not file his claim in the estate proceeding until July 27, 1957.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in refusing to entertain De Guzman’s claim filed after the expiration of the period for presenting claims against the estate.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order. The Court held that under Section 2, Rule 87, the court may allow a claim to be filed after the lapse of the period only upon application, for cause shown, and within an extension not exceeding one month. De Guzman failed to meet these conditions: he did not file an application for permission to file a late claim, his claim alleged no reason for the delay, and he provided no sufficient cause to excuse his failure. His belated allegation of lack of actual knowledge was contradicted by the record, which established his awareness since August 1955. The Court cited precedents stating that negotiation for payment or mere delay without good excuse does not justify an extension. De Guzman’s omission for over a year and a half after knowing of the proceedings justified the denial. The order was affirmed with costs against appellant.