Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

Don Lucas de Ocampo died on November 18, 1906, possessed of certain real and personal property which, by his last will and testament dated July 26, 1906, he left to his three children. The fourth clause of this will reads as follows:

​

“I also declare that I have contracted the debts detailed below, and it is my desire that they may be religiously paid by my wife and executors in the form and at the time agreed upon with my creditors.”

​

Among the debts mentioned in the list referred to are two in favor of the plaintiff, Isidro Santos; one due on April 14, 1907, for P5,000, and various other described as falling due at different dates (the dates are not given) amounting to the sum of P2,454. The will was duly probated and a committee was regularly appointed to hear and determine such claims against the estate as might be presented. The committee submitted its report to the court on June 27, 1908. On On July 14, 1909, the plaintiff, Isidro Santos, presented a petition to the court asking that the committee be required to reconvene and pass upon his claims against the estate which were recognized in the will of testator. The petition was denied by the court, and on November 21, 1910, the plaintiff instituted the present proceedings against Leandra Manarang, the administratrix of the estate, to recover the sums mentioned in the will as due him. Relief was denied in the court below, and now appeals to this court.

​

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court err in refusing to reconvene the committee for the purpose of considering plaintiff's claim.

​

RULING:

No. The committee did give the notice required by law. In the present case, the time previously limited was six months from July 23, 1907. This allowed the plaintiff until January 23, 1908, to present his claims to the committee. An extension of this time rested in the discretion of the court. In other words, the court could extend this time and recall the committee for a consideration of the plaintiff's claims against the estate of justice required it, at any time within the six months after January 23, 1908, or until July 23, 1908. Plaintiff's petition was not presented until July 14, 1909. The bar of the statute of non-claims is an conclusive under these circumstances as the bar of the ordinary statute of limitations would be. It is generally held that claims are not barred as to property not included in the inventory.

​

Hence, the court did not err in refusing to reconvene the committee for the purpose of considering plaintiff's claim.