GR L 45383; (May, 1939) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45383. May 2, 1939.
In the matter of the testamentary proceedings of the deceased Angela J. Serapio Perez. MARIA SERAPIO Y VERA, CIRIACA SERAPIO Y VERA, CARMEN G. REYES, and VICENTE GESTUVO, claimants-appellants, vs. MARIANO SERAPIO and JUAN SERAPIO Y PEREZ, administrators-appellees.
FACTS
In the testamentary proceedings for the estate of Angela J. Serapio Perez, the commissioners on claims filed their report on May 22, 1933, which was approved on June 5, 1933. The appellants, claiming to be creditors of the deceased for P4,348.35, did not file their claims with the commissioners within the statutory period. They alleged that all the heirs of the deceased had agreed to assume and pay these debts before the estate’s distribution and had executed documents to that effect. The appellants later claimed the heirs acted fraudulently to prevent the timely filing of claims. On May 12, 1936, the appellants filed a motion asking the court to either order the administrators to pay their claims or reappoint the commissioners to approve them. The trial court denied the motion, ruling it was filed beyond the six-month period prescribed by section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellants’ motion for payment of their claims or for the reappointment of commissioners, despite the alleged agreement by all heirs to assume the debts.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal. It held that the motion for reappointment of commissioners was correctly denied as it was filed beyond the six-month period from the termination of the commissioners’ work, as required by section 690. However, the Court found the last two assigned errors well-founded. If the co-heirs indeed agreed to assume the debts of the deceased and bound themselves to pay them before distribution, as evidenced by the attached documents, they must fulfill that voluntary obligation. The Court ruled that while reappointment of commissioners was no longer permissible, the heirs who assumed the obligations could not escape them. The trial court should order the administrators to pay these obligations after paying the approved claims but before distributing the estate. The appealed orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for trial to determine the validity of the alleged agreement.
AI Generated by Armztrong.