View full case

ALAN JOSEPH A. SHEKER v. ESTATE OF ALICE O. SHEKER

FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review seeking the reversal of the order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissing a money claim against the estate of Alice O. Sheker. The RTC admitted the holographic will of Sheker and ordered all creditors to file their claims against the estate. The petitioner filed a contingent claim for agent's commission and reimbursement of expenses. The executrix of the estate moved for dismissal of the money claim on the grounds of non-payment of docket fee, failure to attach certification against non-forum shopping, and failure to attach a written explanation for non-personal filing. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the money claim. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC erred in strictly applying the rules of ordinary actions to a probate proceeding. The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition and ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the certification of non-forum shopping is not required for a contingent money claim against an estate. The Court also mentioned that a money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the decedent's estate and does not require payment of docket fees.

ISSUES:

  1. Must a contingent claim filed in the probate proceeding contain a certification against non-forum shopping, failing which such claim should be dismissed?

  2. Must a contingent claim filed against an estate in a probate proceeding be dismissed for failing to pay the docket fees at the time of its filing thereat?

  3. Must a contingent claim filed in a probate proceeding be dismissed because of its failure to contain a written explanation for service and filing by registered mail?

RULING:

  1. No. A certification of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. A contingent money claim against the estate of a decedent is not an initiatory pleading.

  2. No. Non-payment of filing fees for a money claim against the estate is not a ground for dismissing a money claim against the estate. The trial court may order the payment of such filing fees within a reasonable time.

  3. No. The court has discretion to consider whether the failure to submit a written explanation for non-personal service is excusable, particularly when personal service is impracticable due to distance.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A certification against non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings.

  • A money claim against an estate is incidental to the main action for settlement of the decedent's estate.

  • Non-payment of filing fees at the time of filing does not warrant the dismissal of a claim in estate proceedings.

  • The requirement for a written explanation for non-personal service under Section 11, Rule 13, may be liberally construed in certain circumstances.

  • The ruling spirit of probate law emphasizes the speedy settlement of estates for the benefit of creditors and distributees.