A case certified by  the Court of Appeals on the ground that the issues  involved are purely  of law. For  the administration of the  estate of  her  deceased husband,  Pascual Villanueva, the  widow Maurieia G.  de Villanueva, on December   19, 1949, petitioned the Court of First Instance  of Agusan,  for letters of Administration (Sp. Proc.  No.  67).  The  petition  was set for hearing and Notice thereof was published on February 25,  March 4 and  11,  1950, the Manila Daily  Bulletin.  At the hearing, the other heirs while agreeing  to the placing  of the estate   under  administration,  opposed the appointment of the widow.  The name of Atty. Teodulo  R. Ricaforte, was suggested and  all the parties agreed.  After the  taking of  the  required  oath,  Atty. Ricaforte  entered into  the performance  of his duties.  Under  date of  November 9, 1950, the Clerk of the Agusan CFI, issued  the following Notice to Creditors:

"Letters  of  administration having been issued  in the  above entitled  case in favor of Teodulo R. Ricaforte  for the  settlement of the intestate of Pascual Villanueva,  deceased; Notice is hereby  given to all persons  having claims for money against  the  decedent, the said  Pascual  Villanueva, arising from contract, express  or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, for funeral expenses and expenses of last sickness of the deceased, and judgment for money against him, requiring them to file their claims with the clerk of court  within six but not beyond twelve  months  after date of the  first publication of this notice, serving  copies  of such   claims  upon the administrator, the said Teodulo R. Ricaforte."

The above notice contained the usual order for  publication thereof (once a week for three  consecutive weeks), which was effected, thru the  Morning Times of  Cebu City, a newspaper of general circulation, on November 16,  23 and 30, 1950, which  expired on November 16,  1951.

On  July  20,  1953,  the  defendant-appellant  Philippine National  Bank filed  in the  administration  proceedings  a Creditor's Claim, of the following tenor

"The  Philippine  National Bank, Creditor of  Pascual  Villanueva', deceased, respectfully  presents its  claim against the estate  of the said deceased for Approval as  follows:

Original amount thru Agusan Agency on Dec. 20, 1939	.............................................................	P600.00
To int. at 10%: on P600.00 fr. 12-20-39 to  5-5-53		747.45
Total due as of June 5, 1953  (Daily int. of P0.1644 after June 5, 1953)	.............................................................	P1.347.45

That  the  said   obligation  has  been  due and demandable since December 20, 1940; that the same is true and just claim and that it is still unpaid without any set-off."

On October 12, 1954,  the Philippine National Bank filed a Motion  for Admission of Claim, stating

"1. That the  Philippine National Bank filed its claim dated July 20,  1953;

2. That the last  action taken on the claim was an  order of this Honorable Court issued on March 20, 1954, transferring the hearing of the  claim until  the next calendar of the court, without objection of the  administrator;

3. That the administrator has not answered the claim nor denied the same.

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that  an  order he  issued admitting and approving the  claim and  ordering the administrator to pay the Bank the amount of the claim."

The  administrator, on  November  5,  1954, opposed the claim,  alleging that  he had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief  as to the truth of the allegations therein.   As  special defenses, he interposed

"That  the same indebtedness; if it existed, has already been paid" That the cause of action for the recovery of the aforesaid amount of P1,347.4o is  barred  by the statute of limitations, for more than ten (10) years have elapsed  since the cause of action   accrued up to the  present  time;

That the said claim is barred forever or; the ground that the to  creditors having been published in the MORNING TIMES of City, a newspaper of general circulation in the province, on November 10, 23  and 30, 1950, * * * the  Philippine National failed to file its claim  within  the time limited in the notice, * *

The appellant PNB, on  November  11, 1958, more than four (4) years   after the opposition of the claim presented by  the administrator, filed a pleading captioned  "Petition for an Extension of  time within  which to  File  the Claim of Philippine  National  Bank", alleging, among others, that Sec. 2, Rule 87 of the Rules, allows the filing of claims even if the period stated in the notice to  creditors had elapsed, upon cause shown and on  such terms as are equitable; that  its failure  to present  the claim within the period stated in the notice, was its lack of knowledge of the administration proceedings, for while said bank maintains a branch office in  Agusan,  the  employees  there did not  come  to  know of the proceedings,  the  notice having been published in the Morning Times,  a newspaper  of a very limited  circulation.

On  January 16,  1959,  the CFI  issued   the  following Order

"It appearing  that the claim of the Philippine National  Bank against the  estate of the  deceased Pascual  Villanueva  is already barred by the statute of limitations because the claim was due and demandable since December 20, 1940, but was filed on July 20, 1953, after the expiration  of ten  years, and  considering that  said filing was furthermore not presented in court within the period  fixed by Sec. 2, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, and no reason having been shown  to justify  the extension of time   for its filing, the Court resolves to deny  as it  hereby denies the petition for an extension of time for the filing of the claim by the Philippine National  Bank. The failure of the Bank to present on time the claim was due to its  own fault and can hardly be considered excusable  negligence."

Appellant Bank moved to reconsider the above Order, arguing that  the statute of limitations had been suspended by  the Moratorium Law, and that the courts can extend "the  period limited in the notice, under  special circumstances, and on grounds of equity (Velasquez vs. Teodoro, 46 Phil. 757).  The PNB listed  five incidents,  which it considered special circumstances to warrant the granting the extension to present claim, among which are the lack knowledge of  the pendency of  the administration proceedings;  the  legitimacy  of the  loan secured  by  the deceased; that  when it filed the  claim, it  did not  know that the period stated  in the notice had already expired. In  disposing  of  the motion for reconsideration,  the lower court, on March  3, 1959,  said

"The Court believes that the filing of money claim on July 20, 1953 in the Office of the Clerk of Court did not suspend the  runing  of the period of prescription because said claim  was filed out of time and therefore invalid for all  legal  purposes.  A careful revision  of  the record shows that  the  Philippine  National  Bank, contrary to the pretension of  its counsel,  had knowledge of the present administration  proceedings long  before July  20, 1953, because the second payment of the claim  due to the deceased Pascual Villanueva from  the  Philippine War Damage Commission in the amount of P6,441.30, was deposited in  the Agusan Agency of the Bank in June, 1951.  And  in the inventory filed  by the new administrator Francisco S. Conde, on February 27, 1957, the following item appears:

Money belonging to the said deceased, which came into the hands of the administrator on December 1, 1951, appearing in the Bank A-1114,   Agusan Agency deposited by  the late administrator Teodulo  R.  Ricaforte. PG.897.52.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration  is denied for lack of merits."

The order  of January 16,  1959  was  the subject of  the appeal  to  the Court of Appeals which, as  stated in  the threshold of this opinion, certified the same to this Court. The important issue   presented  is whether  or not  the claim in question is already barred.  Admittedly, the claim was filed outside  of the period provided for in the Order of the lower court,  within which to present  claims against the estate.  The period fixed in the notice lapsed on November 16, 1951 and the claim was filed on July 20, 1053 or about 1 year and 8 months late.  This notwithstanding, appellant contends  that  it did  not  know of such   administration  proceedings,  not even its  employees in the Branch Office in Butuan City, Agusan.  It  is  to be noted that the petition for Letters of Administration  and the Notice to Creditors were  duly  published in the Manila Daily Bulletin and  in the Morning  Times,  respectively, which  was  a full  compliance with  the requirements  of the Rules.   Moreover, the supposed lack of knowledge  of the proceedings  on the part of appellant and its employees had  been belied by imcontested and eloquent  evidence, consisting of a deposit of an amount of money by the administrator of the estate  in said Bank (Agusan  Agency). The deposit was made on   December  1,  1951, in spite  of which  the appellant Bank only filed its claim on July 20, 1953.  It is quite  true  that the  Courts can extend the period within which to present claims against the estate, even  after  the  period limited has elapsed; but  such extension should only be granted  under special circumstances. The lower court did not find any justifiable reason to give the extension and  for one thing, there was no period to extend, since  the same had lapsed.

Having reached the above conclusions, We  deem it unnecessary to determine the question as to whether or not the Moratorium Law had  suspended the prescriptive period for filing of the claim under consideration.

Wherefore, the order,  subject of the appeal is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant  Philippine National Bank, in both instances.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.