G.R. No. L-9087; January 27, 1916
MARIANO G. VELOSO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE HEREDIA, as administrator of the estate of Genaro Heredia, deceased, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Mariano G. Veloso filed an action to foreclose a mortgage executed in his favor by Genaro Heredia on July 20, 1908, to secure a loan of P4,200 with 8% interest. Before the action commenced, Genaro Heredia died, and Jose Heredia was appointed administrator of his estate. The defendant administrator answered, alleging that the plaintiff had already presented his mortgage claim to the commissioners appointed to hear claims against the estate, and that the claim had been allowed. The trial court found that the plaintiff had indeed filed his claim with the commissioners, proving it with the mortgage document, and that the claim was allowed. The trial court held that by filing his claim with the commissioners, the plaintiff abandoned his mortgage security and elected to participate in the general distribution of the estate’s assets. Consequently, the court dismissed the foreclosure action. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether a creditor holding a mortgage claim against the estate of a deceased person, after having presented and obtained allowance of his claim before the commissioners on appraisal, can subsequently maintain an action to foreclose the mortgage.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the foreclosure action. The Court held that under Section 708 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, a creditor holding a claim secured by a mortgage against a deceased person’s estate has two mutually exclusive remedies: (1) abandon the security and prosecute the claim before the commissioners to share in the general distribution of the estate’s assets, or (2) foreclose the mortgage by ordinary action in court. The creditor cannot pursue both remedies. By electing to present his claim to the commissioners and obtaining its allowance, the plaintiff abandoned his right to foreclose the mortgage. The law does not permit a creditor to harass those interested in the estate by maintaining two actions for the same purpose. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.