G.R. No. L-18935; February 26, 1965
IN RE: INTESTATE ESTATE OF BEATRIZ C. DE RAMA, deceased. ANGELO O. DE RAMA, petitioner-appellant, vs. CHERIE PALILEO, claimant-appellee.

FACTS

In the intestate estate proceedings of Beatriz Cosio de Rama before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a notice to creditors was duly published, with the first publication appearing on August 13, 1958, requiring claims to be filed within six months. The administrator filed an inventory on January 27, 1959, showing assets and liabilities. No claims were filed within the notice period. Subsequently, the court approved the administrator’s final account and project of partition on May 12, 1960. However, on June 7, 1961, Cherie Palileo petitioned the court for permission to file a money claim. She alleged that she obtained a money judgment against the deceased from the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 2256-R, which was promulgated on May 6, 1961. She contended that while the lower court in that case had decided in her favor regarding ownership and possession of a property, it was only the Court of Appeals on appeal that granted the money judgment. The administrator opposed the petition, arguing the claim was filed beyond the statutory period for creditors. The lower court, by order of August 8, 1961, sustained the claimant and allowed her to file her claim within one month, noting that no final decree of distribution had yet been entered.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court committed a reversible error or an abuse of discretion in allowing the claimant to file her money claim against the estate after the expiration of the period stated in the notice to creditors, but before an order of distribution was entered.

RULING

No. The order of the lower court is affirmed. Section 2, Rule 87 of the old Rules of Court (now Rule 86) provides that the time limit stated in the notice to creditors is not exclusive. The court may, for cause shown and on equitable terms, allow a claim to be filed at any time before an order of distribution is entered, with the extension not exceeding one month. In this case, it was uncontroverted that no order of distribution had been entered. The claimant’s reason for the late filing—that the money judgment in her favor was only promulgated by the Court of Appeals on May 6, 1961, after the six-month claims period had elapsed—constituted sufficient cause for the lower court to exercise its discretion and allow the filing. The lower court’s action, under these circumstances, did not constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.