Scribd
Upload
212 views

Echaus Vs Blanco

Echaus filed a claim against the estate of C.N. Hodges more than 4 years after the publication of the notice to creditors. The respondents argued the claim was barred by the statute of non-claims. The Supreme Court ruled that the period in the notice is not exclusive and claims can be filed before an order of distribution. While Echaus' judgment was allowed as a claim, immediate payment was not required as the administrator must pay claims and debts in due course as determined by the probate court overseeing the estate proceedings.

Uploaded by

careyssa Mae Ipil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
212 views

Echaus Vs Blanco

Echaus filed a claim against the estate of C.N. Hodges more than 4 years after the publication of the notice to creditors. The respondents argued the claim was barred by the statute of non-claims. The Supreme Court ruled that the period in the notice is not exclusive and claims can be filed before an order of distribution. While Echaus' judgment was allowed as a claim, immediate payment was not required as the administrator must pay claims and debts in due course as determined by the probate court overseeing the estate proceedings.

Uploaded by

careyssa Mae Ipil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
You are on page 1/ 1

TITLE: ECHAUS VS. HON.

BLANCO
CITATION: G.R. No. L-30453 December 4, 1989
TOPIC: TIME WITHIN WHICH CLAIMS SHALL BE FILED
DOCTRINE: The period prescribed in the notice to creditors is not exclusive; that money claims
against the estate may be allowed any time before an order of distribution is entered, at the
discretion of the court for cause and upon such terms as are equitable.

FACTS:
 Angelina Echaus, the administratrix of her father’s estate filed a complaint against C.N. Hodges
for the recovery of profits and remaining assets of their business covering Ba-Ta Subdivision in
the CFI of Negros Occidental.
 During the trial, C.N. Hodges died and was substituted with Philippine Commercial and
Industrial Bank (PCIB) as administrator of the estate. On March of 1963, a notice to creditors
was published in Yuhum which is a newspaper of general circulation.
 A judgment was rendered in favor of Echaus ordering PCIB in its capacity as administrator of
the estate of C.N. Hodges to pay the sum of P851,472.83 with legal interest thereon from the
date of judgment until paid.
 Echaus filed a writ of execution which was not enforced since she filed a motion in the estate
proceedings of the deceased C.N. Hodges for the payment of the judgment on 1967.
 Consequently, opposition has been filed and the heirs have filed a motion to intervene. It in
effect resulted to the holding in abeyance of the resolution for the payment of the judgment.
Meanwhile, the respondents contended that the judgment being a money claim should have
been dismissed in the estate proceedings since it is already barred by the statute of non-claims
since it has been filed for more than 4 years from the publication of said notice.

ISSUE:
Whether the judgment claim in the estate proceedings is barred by the statute of non-claims

RULING:
NO.
The Rules of Court allows a creditor to file his claim after the period set by the court in the
notice to creditors, provided the conditions stated in the rules are present. The period prescribed in the
notice to creditors is not exclusive and that money claims against the estate may be allowed any time
before an order of distribution is entered, at the discretion of the court for cause and upon such terms
as are equitable.
In the case at bar, at the time petitioner's motion to direct payment of the judgement credit
was filed, no order of distribution was issued yet. Moreover, the record does not show that the
administrator objected thereto upon the ground that it was filed out of time. The court is also
persuaded to say that the pendency of the case is a good excuse for tardiness in the filing of the claim.
Nevertheless, although petitioners' judgment credit is allowed as a claim against the estate,
immediate payment thereof by the administrator of the estate, is not a matter of right. A judgment
against the executor or administrator shall be that he pays, in due course of administrator, the amount
ascertained to be due, and it shall not create a lien upon the property of the estate, or give the
judgment creditor any priority in payment (Sec. 13, Rule 86, Revised Rules). The time for paying debts
(and legacies) is to be fixed by the probate court having jurisdiction over the estate of the deceased
who is taking cognizance of the estate proceedings.

You might also like