You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1260?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[IN RE WILL OF HENRY W. ELSER v. C. W. ROSENSTOCK](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1260?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c1260}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 24984, Mar 13, 1926 ]

IN RE WILL OF HENRY W. ELSER v. C. W. ROSENSTOCK +

DECISION

48 Phil. 861

[ G. R. No. 24984, March 13, 1926 ]

IN RE WILL OF HENRY W. ELSER, DECEASED. E. S. LYONS, APPLICANT AND APPELLANT, VS. C. W. ROSENSTOCK AND ELAINE CHILDS ELSER, OPPONENTS AND APPELLEES.

D E C I S I O N

ROMUALDEZ, J.:

On February 28, 1924, E. S. Lyons filed  with the  committee on claims and  appraisals  duly appointed and qualified  in  the  proceeding  for the  settlement of the estate of Henry W. Elser, deceased, a claim concerning 500 shares of stock of  J. K. Pickering  Co.,  Ltd., amounting approximately to P100,000, with  all dividends paid and interest thereon from the date of their receipt by the deceased until their delivery to the claimant, minus the amount paid by said  deceased, Henry W. Elser, for the benefit of said claimant for the cancellation of a mortgage upon a property in the City of Manila, No.  316 Calle Carriedo.

On February 29, 1924, the committee, through its member J. J. de Guzman, acknowledged receipt of said claim in a letter addressed to the claimant, which is as follows:
"Dear Sir: "This  is to  acknowledge  receipt of  your  claim  dated February 28, 1924, presented to this Commission amounting  to P100,000 plus all the dividends declared on 500 shares of the J. K. Pickering Co. less amount paid by  Henry W. Elser on your behalf for the retirement of a  certain mortgage.

"You will be notified later of the date of the hearing.

     "Very truly yours,
           "P.  D. CARMAN & J. J. DE GUZMAN
                "Committee on Claims and Appraisals
                        for the Estate of Henry  W. Elser

"By (Sgd.)  J. J. DE GUZMAN
                                 "Member"
The claimant, E. S. Lyons, did not  receive any notice of the hearing upon his aforesaid claim.

On June  2,  1924, the committee filed its report  on the claims, the pertinent part of which is as follows:
"FINAL REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON  CLAIMS AND  APPRAISALS

"Come now the undersigned Committee appointed by the Court to  appraise the estate  and receive claims  against the same in  the above-entitled case and respectfully presents to the Court, below  its  final  report, of all the  claims that have  been  presented against  the  estate in  the above-entitled case from the  4th day  of  September, 1923, the date of the first publication of notice to  the  creditors of the estate as directed by this Court, up to and including February 29, 1924, in which report are expressed in each case the name of the creditor, the nature of the claim, and the fact of its admission or rejection by the undersigned Committee :

*     *      *      *       *      *       *

 "The  following claims have also been presented before the Committee but have  not been heard for reasons set forth  after each claim:

Name of claimants
Nature of Claim
 
Reasons why claim wasn't heard
Amount of Claim
         
E.S. Lyons
Asking for the return of 500 shares of J.K. P. Co. or approximately the amount of claim
 
Hearing was postponed due to the fact that there was a proposed settlement of the claim but later was not carried out.
     P100,.000.00

Neither did  claimant  E. S. Lyons receive  any notice of the filing of the  report.  On  July 20, 1925, his attorneys filed a motion, praying the Court of First Instance of Manila that  the committee be ordered to meet and hear the claim of E. S. Lyons, upon notice of the  time  to be fixed for the purpose, and decide  the same, or other two commissioners be appointed to hear and decide said claim.

This was opposed by the executor of the deceased and the widow through their attorneys.

On August 19, 1925, the court denied the motion of E. S. Lyons on the ground that more than  eighteen months had already elapsed since the  committee  was appointed and qualified.

On August 25, 1925, the claimant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was  opposed by  the executor, and denied by the court on September  14th of that year, 1925.

The  claimant appeals  from  said orders of  August 19 and September  14, 1925, denying his  motions, and assigns error to the action of the lower court in denying his first motion, as well as his motion for  reconsideration.

The court below denied the petition  of the claimant,  as stated in  the orders appealed from on the ground that the whole period fixed by sections 689  and 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure  has expired,  and  that whatever may  be the purpose of reappointing the committee, it would mean an extension of the period fixed by the law.

But said sections 689 and 690 have  reference  to the time within  which creditors  may present their   claims,' and the case at bar is not about filing of claims, but their examination and admission by the committee.

Similar to the instant case is Riosa vs. Estate of Valenciano  (20 Phil.,  170), where the creditor, Mariano Riosa, had presented  his claim to the committee also  within the period fixed but as the parties did not appear, and a  motion of the creditor for a new postponement of the hearing was pending of which a notice was given to the administrator of the estate, the committee adjourned its meetings, leaving the aforementioned claim of said creditor undecided.  That committee had begun to publish their notices on December 18, 1906,  "fixing," as this court says  (page  175, volume  20 of the Philippine  Reports), "*   *  *  the time  of six months for the persons who might have claims against said estate to  present themselves, which time must have  been counted at least from the  19th of  said month.   *   *  * " (Italics ours.)

By an order dated January 22, 1908,  the trial court considered such claim as  not presented.

On July 29,  1908, that is 18 months and 29 days, after the period fixed by the committee  had  begun to run, Mariano  Riosa  moved the court " *  *   *   to  regard the claim,  with its Exhibits A and B,  as presented  and  to admit  it; and  in  case  it be disputed to order  that it  be proved before the committee already appointed  or  before another to be appointed for the purpose, as provided  in said section of the code."

This motion was denied, and the creditor having taken an appeal therefrom, this court, in a decision reported in the aforecited volume of the  Philippine Reports,  reversed the judgment of the lower court, and ordered that  "*  *  * the court should make  due disposition for a committee on appraisal to examine and pass upon the said claim of Mariano  Riosa  in  the  manner indicated, said committee  to act as provided  by law  *  *   *."

In that case, as in the one at bar, the claim was presented to the committee  within the  period fixed; there,  as  here, the committee filed its  report without deciding the claim; there,  as here, it was petitioned, eighteen months after  the first meeting, at least, of the committee, that the committee examine the claim, or another committee be appointed.  In that case, this  court granted  the  petition.   We see  no reason  why  the petition filed  in this proceeding should not be granted.

Appellant is charged with  laches.   The facts of record do not show it.   The appellant had filed his claim.   He was told  that he  would  be notified  of the hearing.   He was not notified.  The  report of the committee was  filed. He had  no notice thereof.  Wondering  why  he  did not receive notice from  the committee,  he  wrote letters of inquiry on August 30, September 10 and November  19, 1924.   (Pages 75, 76 and 79, record on appeal.)

He is also  blamed for not having appealed from the  report of the committee within the time fixed by the law for the purpose.   Said report did not contain any ruling  upon the claim of the herein  appellant.  Even supposing him to have had notice of the  report on  time, there was nothing from  which he  could take an appeal.  Such a report, as regards the appellant, was not a due compliance with the provision of section  693 to the  effect that there be stated "how much was allowed, and how much disallowed,  with the final balance, whether in  favor of the creditor or the estate; and the  report shall  state the manner in which notice  was given to the claimants."

It was alleged that the committee acts in a judicial capacity.  True; but it did not do so in the instant case, it did not hear, deliberate, nor form a judgment; it did not judge nor decide the claim of the appellant.

It was incumbent upon  the  appellant, according to the appellee, to push his claim. Under the circumstances of the case, we are of  the opinion that the appellant did all that was in his power to obtain payment of his credit.

Appellee contends  that the filing of the report is in effect a pronouncement of  the judgment of the committee. That is true, provided that  the report decides  the claims  presented.

It is true that when  no appeal is taken, the decision of the claim by the committee is final.  But it is  also  true that when,  as in the instant case, there was no such decision, there was no occasion for an appeal, and nothing to become final.

As to the period of the functions  of the  committee,  they are limited by sections  689 and 690 as to  the time within which they shall receive claims for hearing and  decision. But as to  their  duties  to hear and  decide the claims  presented in due time, the law gives  it to understand  that such duties last  as long as they are not discharged by the same commissioners  or others appointed for that purpose, and it was so held by this court in the aforecited case of Riosa vs. Estate of Valenciano.

The orders appealed from are  reversed, and the lower court is  ordered to  appoint the same persons who were commissioners on claims in this  proceeding, or others, in accordance with the  law, in order that the committee  thus appointed may set a date for the hearing of the claim of the herein appellant, proceed with said hearing and decide the claim upon its  merits  according  to law,  without special pronouncement as to costs.  So ordered.

Avanceña, C.  J.,  Street,  Malcolm, Villamor,   Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

tags