G.R. No. 149926 – UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. EDMUND SANTIBAÑEZ and FLORENCE SANTIBAÑEZ ARIOLA, respondents.

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Rule Synopsis

Money claims against the a deceased must be filed before the probate court, and following the procedures and periods set forth in the Rules of Court.

Facts

Efraim Santibanez obtained a loan First Countryside Credit Corporation (FCCC; Unionbank is its successor) in two instances. This is for the payment of [2] tractors that he purchased. He executed loan agreements and promissory notes (PNs). Edmund, his son, was co-maker in the PNs. Efraim eventually died without having these obligation being fully paid. He left a holographic will which was then probated before the court. Subsequently, Edmund and his sister Florence (heirs of Efraim) executed a Joint Agreement (allegedly required by Unionbank) whereby they distributed to themselves certain properties, including the tractors that were financed by the subject loans. The Agreement also provides that the heirs agree to assume the indebtedness pertaining to the properties allotted to them.

Unionbank then sent demand letters to Edmund and Florence for the payment of the balance of the obligations but these remained unpaid. The summons as to Edmund was not served as he was in the US at the time. Hence, Unionbank filed a collection case against Florence.

Florence argued that: (1) Unionbank should have filed its claim before the probate court in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court; and (2) the Joint Agreement executed by her and her brother were null and void since there can be no distribution of the estate of the deceased until the will was probated first, and that at the time of the execution of the agreement, the proceedings for the probate of her father’s will was already underway, and finally, that Unionbank was aware of the pendency of said proceedings.

the will was probated first, and that at the time of the execution of the agreement, the proceedings for the probate of her father’s will was already underway, and finally, that Unionbank was aware of the pendency of said proceedings.

The RTC dismissed the Unionbank’s complaint. The CA affirmed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and held that Unionbank’s money claim should have been filed before the probate court.

Issues

May a creditor of a deceased for a money claim collect directly from the heir on the ground that obligations of the deceased transmit to said heirs from the moment of death of the decedent?

Ruling and Discussion

No. A creditor of a deceased for a money claim may not collect directly from the heir on the ground that obligations of the deceased transmit to said heirs from the moment of death of the decedent.

(a) The filing of a money claim against the decedent’s estate in the probate court is mandatory.

This requirement is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased by informing the executor or administrator of the claims against it, thus enabling him to examine each claim and to determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed. The plain and obvious design of the rule is the speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the property to the distributees, legatees, or heirs. ‘The law strictly requires the prompt presentation and disposition of the claims against the decedent’s estate in order to settle the affairs of the estate as soon as possible, pay off its debts and distribute the residue.

(b) The documentary evidence presented, particularly the promissory notes and the continuing guaranty agreement, were executed and signed only by the late Efraim Santibañez and his son Edmund. At most, Unionbank may go after Edmund, but it may not go after Florence.

dispositive

Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.