Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-47895 July 13, 1942
TESTATE ESTATE OF TE !ECEASE! JUAN !"#ON, $"CENTE
SANT"AGO, executor-appellee, vs.S"%TO !E LOS ANGELES,
movant-appellant.
Sixto de los Angeles in his own behalf.Ramon Diokno for appellant.
Vicente Santiago in his own behalf.
MORAN, J.&
After the death of smael !i"on, the follo#in$ persons successivel%
administered his estate& his brother 'uan !i"on #ho in turn died on
'ul% (), *+(,, Marta !i"on, one of smael-s heirs, #ho also died on
Ma% *), *+(./ and the present appellant 0ixto de los An$eles #ho,
after the death of Marta, #as also named executor of her estate. 'uan
!i"on, prior to his death, failed to deliver to his brother-s heirs the
fruits of the propert% he had administered, and to ma1e pa%ment
thereof he be2ueathed, in his last #ill and testament to said heirs, in
the form of le$ac%, all the outstandin$ credits he had at the time of his
death, expressl% providin$, ho#ever, that, should the heirs choose to
re3ect said le$ac%, the executor appointed in his #ill should ma1e an
accountin$ of all the fruits aforementioned.
4n Ma% 5, *+(+, the committee on claims and appraisals appointed
in the testamentar% of the deceased 'uan !i"on filed its report. 4n
Ma% (*, of the same %ear, appellant 0ixto de los An$eles, as executor
of the estate of Marta and administrator of the estate of smael, filed
#ith the probate court a so-called 6Reparos al informe % el inventario
presentados por el comite de avaluos % reclamaciones,6 in #hich it
#as then made of record that the heirs of smael, in accordance #ith
the option accorded them in 'uan !i"on-s last #ill, #aived the le$ac%
of the outstandin$ credits and preferred to claim instead the balance
resultin$ from the accountin$ of the fruits to be made b% the executor
of 'uan !i"on. 4n 0eptember **, *+(+, the probate court approved
the report of the committee.
4n !ecember (*, *+(+, appellee 7icente 0antia$o, as executor of
the estate of 'uan !i"on, instituted in the Court of 8irst 9nstance of
Ri"al an action a$ainst appellant 0ixto de los An$eles in the latter-s
dual capacit% as administrator of the estate of smael !i"on and
executor of the estate of Marta !i"on, pra%in$ that certain properties
be declared of exclusive o#nership of the deceased 'uan !i"on and
be delivered to him as executor of the latter-s estate. Appellant filed a
cross-complaint demandin$, in turn, an accountin$ and li2uidation of
all the fruits of the properties of smael !i"on durin$ their
administration b% 'uan !i"on in his lifetime. Appellee interposed a
demurrer to this cross-complaint #hich #as overruled. :he trial court
thereafter rendered 3ud$ment declarin$, inter alia, that the accountin$
pra%ed for in the cross-complaint could not be ordered, it havin$ been
rendered impossible b% the death of 'uan !i"on/ that appellee, as
executor of the estate of 'uan !i"on, could be held accountable onl%
for the properties of the estate from the time he acted as such
executor/ and that, at all events, appellant-s claim for accountin$
should have been laid in the testate proceedin$s of 'uan !i"on, and
not in a separate, ordinar% action. :his 3ud$ment, appealed from b%
both parties, #as affirmed b% this Court. Appellant 0ixto de los
An$eles moved for reconsideration and in the resolution den%in$ the
motion this Court said&
;ith re$ard to defendant-s contention to the effect that the plaintiff
should be re2uired to $ive an accountin$ of the fruits of the lands
coverin$ the administration of the deceased 'uan !i"on, the proper
procedure is for said defendant to demand the value of said fruits b%
presentin$ the proper claim to the committee appointed in the
testamentar% proceedin$s of the late 'uan !i"on.
Actin$ in pursuance of the above-2uoted portion of this resolution,
appellant filed #ith the court of ori$in a motion pra%in$ that the
committee on claims and appraisals appointed in the testamentar%
proceedin$s of the deceased 'uan !i"on be reopened so that it ma%
pass upon the claim for accountin$ made b% the heirs smael !i"on.
:his motion still pendin$ in court #hen the ne# Rules #ent into effect
on 'ul% *, *+5), #as #ithdra#n and appellant filed another pra%in$
that the claim for accountin$ be admitted directl% b% the court, in
accordance #ith the ne# Rules. :his ne# motion #as accompanied
#ith an itemi"ed claim for P,.,(++.)<. :he lo#er court denied the
motion holdin$ that the committee on claims and appraisals can no
lon$er, under the circumstances of the case, be revived and that the
ne# Rules of Court cannot #ith 3ustice be applied to appellant-s case,
appellee havin$ ac2uired under the prior la# certain ri$hts, such as,
the barrin$ of appellant-s claim for failure to present it #ithin the time
provided in the former la#. 9t is from this den%in$ order that appellant
interposes the present appeal.
Appellant holds the vie# that the committee on claims and appraisals
appointed in the testamentar% proceedin$s of the late 'uan !i"on
ma%, under the provision of section ,)* of Act No. *+), still be revived
for admission of appellant-s claims, and that such revival is
necessaril% implied from the resolution of this Court #herein #e
stated that #ith respect to such claim, 6the proper procedure is for
said defendant to demand the value of said fruits b% presentin$ the
proper claim to the committee appointed in the testamentar%
proceedin$s of the late 'uan !i"on.6 4n the other hand, appellee
maintains that section ,)* of Act No. *+) relied upon is no authorit%
for the revival of the committee #hich has lon$ become functus
officio, and that the statement of the resolution of this Court
afore2uoted is to be ta1en as director% onl% if the reconvention of the
committee is still le$all% possible/ other#ise, it should be vie#ed as a
mere enunciation of a $eneral rule of procedure on the matter.
;e believe and so hold that appellant-s contention is meritorious. :he
resolution of this Court allo#in$ the claim to be filed #ith the
committee on claims has become final and remains onl% to be
obe%ed not, evaded. :he resolution could have meant nothin$ but
#hat its clear lan$ua$e so declares to the effect that the value of the
fruits could still be claimed before the committee and that necessaril%
the committee could still be reopened to that end. :he propriet% of
this procedure #ould not have been su$$ested if, appellants claim
havin$ been barred, obedience thereto #as impossible. =ad the court
deemed the claim to be so barred, a clear statement to that effect
#ould have been made to void further liti$ation.
8urthermore, aside from #hat is su$$ested in the resolution, #e hold
that the claim, even under the former procedure, could be presented
directl% to the probate court prior to the distribution of the propert% left
b% the deceased 'uan !i"on. :he ri$ht of election accorded the heirs
of smael !i"on #as a testamentar% provision contained in the #ill of
'uan !i"on, and ma% thus be enforced directl% b% the probate court.
And, as the accountin$ of the fruits to be made b% the executor,
should the heirs re3ect the le$ac%, is merel% incidental to the
enforcement of the #ill, it also ma% be ordered b% the probate court
directl% in these estate proceedin$s.
:he 2uestion of #hether the former procedure or the ne# Rules of
Court should be follo#ed in the presentation of the claim is academic,
since under either method it ma% be filed directl%, #ith the probate
court.
4rder is reversed and appellant-s itemi"ed claim is hereb% ordered
admitted to be heard directl% b% the probate court, #ith costs a$ainst
appellee.
Yulo, C.., !"aeta and #ocobo, ., concur.$aras, ., concurs in the
result.