Spec Pro Class 2020

SEVERINO PAREDES, and VICTORIO G. IGNACIO, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. JOSE L. MOYA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IX and CARMENCITA NAVARRO-Administratrix (Substituted for deceased August Kuntze), respondents.

 

G.R. No. L-38051 December 26, 1974

 

FERNANDEZ, J.:

Facts:

     Petitioner Severino Paredes commenced a suit in the CFI, Court of First Instance - Manila, for the collection of separation and overtime pay against the employer, August Kuntze.

 

     On March 05, 1971, a decision was rendered against the defendant August Kuntze, from which judgment he appealed to the Court of Appeals.

 

    While the case was pending appeal to the court, August Kuntze died on June 19, 1972. Then Plaintiff Severino Paredes was duly notified.

 

    Thereafter, Carmencita D. Navarro Kuntze, administratrix of the estate of the deceased, was substituted in his place as party in the appealed case.

    Then the court of appeals dismissed the case for failure of the appellant to file the printed record on appeal.

 

    Then a motion for execution was filed by Paredes, then the provincial sheriff of Rizal levied on the properties of the defendant.

 

     In the auction sale made by the sheriff, Paredes was the highest bidder.

 

     Then a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution was filed by Carmencita Navarro but still pending resolution Paredes sold the property to Victorio Ignacio.

 

Issue:

      Whether or not the claim of the petitioner, Paredes, to have a money judgment in his favor against the properties of the deceased Kuntze is tenable.

 

Rulings:

      No. The claim of Paredes to have a money Judgment in his favor against the properties of the deceased Kuntze is untenable.

 

      Because the proper remedy of plaintiff Paredes should have been to file his claim in the administration proceedings of the estate of the deceased defendant kuntze where private respondent is the administratrix because:

 

       All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice.

 

       Judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed by the creditors at the time limited in the notice before the court where administration proceedings involving the estate of the deceased kuntze was pending.

 

     Consequently, the respondent court correctly nullified the order of execution pursuant to the judgment which become final and executory.

 

       Although the validity of the money claim covered by judgment against the decedent which has already become final and executory can no longer be litigated in court where administration proceedings for settlement of the properties of the deceased are still pending, unlike other money claims whose validity may yet be challenged by executor administrator.

 

      Hence, the order of the lower court nullifying its order of execution, the levy of execution, and auction sale is hereby affirmed and petition for certiorari is dismissed.