GR 34648; (February, 1932) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-34648; February 18, 1932
In re will of Gregorio Natividad. JOSE ALVAREZ, creditor-appellee, vs. CASIMIRO NATIVIDAD, ET AL., opponents-appellants.
FACTS
Gregorio Natividad died on May 30, 1926. A will dated August 27, 1923, was presented for probate by his grandson, Alfredo Natividad. The testator’s son, Casimiro Natividad, and other heirs opposed the probate. During the hearing, the opponents’ attorneys, without special authority from Casimiro (who was present in the courthouse), withdrew their opposition to the will. The court admitted the will to probate. Casimiro immediately objected, and the Supreme Court, in a prior case (Natividad vs. Natividad), set aside the probate order, ruling that attorneys cannot compromise litigation without special authority, especially where minors’ interests are involved, and remanded the case for a new trial. Meanwhile, in the estate proceedings, a committee on claims was formed. After its initial session, the committee suspended its work. Later, upon motion of creditor Dr. Jose Alvarez, the court extended the committee’s session to hear his claim for professional fees. The committee notified coadministrator Casimiro Natividad of the hearing. Casimiro did not attend, stating he awaited instructions from his lawyers. The committee, in an ex parte proceeding, allowed Alvarez’s claim. Casimiro later moved to set aside the allowance of the claim, which the trial court denied.
ISSUE
Whether the committee on claims properly allowed the claim of Dr. Jose Alvarez against the estate.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court set aside the order approving the claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found irregularities in the allowance of the claim: (1) the claim was presented almost a year after the Supreme Court’s decision in the related probate case; (2) coadministrator Casimiro Natividad was not given a reasonable time to object; (3) the claim was allowed based solely on the claimant’s sworn statement without the coadministrator Alfredo Natividad making any effort to protect the estate’s interests; and (4) while Casimiro’s motion to set aside was not a technical appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court treated it as a substantial compliance to serve justice. The Court emphasized that the committee’s notice to Casimiro was proper under the law, but the overall proceedings were irregular, warranting a new hearing on the merits of the claim.
AI Generated by Armztrong.