G.R. No. 47971 ; June 27, 1941
Intestate estate of the deceased Julio Magbanua. MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MANUEL A. AKOL and ZACARIAS B. DOROMAL, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On August 24, 1917, Julio Magbanua died intestate in Pototan, Iloilo. No intestate proceedings were instituted until April 1, 1935, when Reynalda Magbanua (claiming to be an acknowledged natural daughter) and her husband filed a petition, later amended, praying for letters of administration and the appointment of Zacarias B. Doromal as administrator. Priscila Magbanua and Paz Magbanua (alleging to be legitimate sisters of the deceased) opposed and prayed for the dismissal of the petition or, alternatively, the appointment of Manuel A. Akol as administrator. On July 20, 1935, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo appointed Manuel Akol as administrator and Zacarias B. Doromal as co-administrator. Commissioners on claims and appraisal were appointed, who published a notice requiring claims to be filed within six months. On November 11, 1935, Mariano Magbanua and his wife Priscila Magbanua filed a claim against the estate for P2,251.86. The committee disallowed this claim on the ground of prescription under section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The claimants appealed by filing a complaint against the administrators. The trial court affirmed the committee’s resolution, disallowing the claim on the ground of laches. The claimants appealed, contending the court erred in declaring their claim prescribed and in not ordering payment.

ISSUE

Whether the claim of the appellants had prescribed.

RULING

Yes, the claim had prescribed. The Court affirmed the order of the trial court. It is admitted that at the time of Julio Magbanua’s death on August 24, 1917, the appellants’ right of action had not yet prescribed. However, by the time the claim was filed on November 11, 1935, over eighteen years had elapsed. The appellants argued that the death of the debtor ipso facto suspended the running of the prescriptive period. The Court rejected this argument, citing Sikat vs. Viuda de Villanueva (57 Phil., 486) and Ledesma et al. vs. McLachlin et al. The ruling spirit of probate law is the speedy settlement of estates. Creditors with knowledge of their debtor’s death cannot indefinitely keep the estate in suspense by not instituting testate or intestate proceedings to present their claim. According to law, persons entitled to administration have thirty days from death to claim that right, after which the court may appoint any creditor of the intestate debtor. Section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes a creditor to institute intestate proceedings through the appointment of an administrator to collect his credit. The appellants were aware of the death (Priscila Magbanua, a claimant, was the deceased’s sister and alleged she took care of him and paid funeral expenses). Their failure to initiate proceedings for over eighteen years constituted laches, and their action had prescribed. The order disallowing the claim was affirmed.