Rule 87 since there was no allegation that they assumed
the plaintiffs-
Case No. 1: G.R. No. L-28298 November 25, 1983
ROSITA SANTIAGO DE BAUTISTA, ET AL., plaintiffs-
appellees, vs. VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, ET AL., defendants-
appellants.
Facts:
 Rosendo de Guzman, deceased husband and
father of the defendants-appellants, was the
owner and operator of a passenger jeepney
bearing Plate No. TPU-4013, which was driven by
Eugenio Medrano Y Torres. It was Medrano who
drove the vehicle in a negligent and reckless
manner when the jeepney turned turtle thereby
injuring passenger Numeriano Bautista, husband
and father of plaintiffs-appellees. Numeriano
Bautista sustained numerous physical injuries
causing his demise.
 Eugenio Medrano, the driver, was accused and
convicted of homicide through reckless
imprudence by the trial court. On May 12, 1952,
Rosendo de Guzman died.
 Because plaintiffs failed to collect P3,000.00 from
Medrano as part of the award granted to them
by the trial court, they filed a complaint against
defendants-appellants. They demanded from
Rosendo de Guzman and from the defendants-
appellants the payment of the sums of P3,000.00
as subsidiary liability; P10,000.00 as actual
exemplary and moral damages and Pl,000.00 as
attorney's fees for the suit by reason of the
death of Numeriano Bautista as related above,
but Rosendo de Guzman and later the herein
defendants-appellants refused to pay the same.
 Defendants-appellants filed a motion to dismiss
contending that the lower court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
litigation and that the complaint stated no cause
of action. In support of said motion, they
maintained that the suit was for a money claim
against the supposed debtor who was already
dead and as such it should be filed in testate or
intestate proceedings or, in the absence of such
proceedings, after the lapse of thirty (30) days,
the creditors should initiate such proceedings,
that the heirs could not be held liable therefor
Special Proceedings
Instead of doing so, however.
the alleged obligation.
 The lower court sustained the motion to dismiss
on May 11, 1953. However, on December 14,
1954. plaintiffs-appellees filed with the same
trial court Civil Case No. 3530 against the same
defendants in the former case, with analogous
allegations as those embodied in the first
complaint but further allege that on June 12,
1952, Rosendo de Guzman died intestate and
that intestate proceedings were filed in the same
court and docketed therein as Special
Proceedings No. 1303-P, wherein on April 20,
1953, a project of partition was presented in and
approved by said Court with the five heirs
receiving their shares valued at P2,294.05 each,
and on May 14, 1953, said intestate proceedings
were closed.
 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss with the
same grounds as enumerated in the former case,
adding the ground of res judicata. The lower
court denied the motion to dismiss and ruled in
favor of plaintiffs-appellees. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in giving due
course to the complaint of plaintiffs-appelles despite the
grounds raised by defendants-appellants.
Ruling: YES.
 The SC ruled that lost their right to recover
because of negligence and a failure to observe
mandatory provisions of the law and the Rules.
They overlooked the fact that they were no
longer suing Rosendo de Guzman who died
shortly after the accident but his heirs.
 Citing Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court,
the SC emphasized that said rule is mandatory.
The requirement therein is for the purpose of
protecting the estate of the deceased. The
executor or administrator is informed 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. Therefore,
upon the dismiss of the first complaint of herein
plaintiffs-appellees in Civil Case No. 2050, they
should have presented their claims before the
intestate proceedings filed in the same court and
docketed as Special Proceedings No. 1303-P.
Rule 87: Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators
appellees slept on their right. They allowed said
proceedings to terminate and the properties to
be distributed to the heirs pursuant to a project
of partition before instituting this separate
action. Such do not sanctioned by the above rule
for it strictly requires the prompt presentation
and disposition of 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. With the exception
provided for in the above rule, the failure of
herein plaintiffs-appellees to present their claims
before the intestate proceedings of the estate of
Rosendo de Guzman within the prescribed
period constituted a bar to a subsequent claim
against the estate or a similar action of the same
import.
 It was an error on the part of the trial court to
hold that the plaintiffs-appellees had a cause of
action against the defendants-appellants who
are the heirs of the deceased against whom the
liability is sought to be enforced, much less take
cognizance of the complaint. As in the first
complaint, said court could not have assumed
jurisdiction over the second case for the simple
reason that it was no longer acting as a probate
court which was the proper forum to file such
complaint. The termination of the intestate
proceedings and the distribution of the estate to
the heirs did not alter the fact that plaintiffs-
appellees' claim was a money claim which should
have been presented before the probate court.
The liability of the late Rosendo de Guzman
arose from the breach of his obligations under
the contract of carriage between him and the
unfortunate passenger. The obligations are
spelled out by law but the liability arose from a
breach of contractual obligations. The resulting
claim is a money claim.
 Section 5, Rule 88 provides the only instance
wherein a creditor can file an action against a
distributee of the debtor's asset. Even under the
above rule, the contingent claims must first have
been established and allowed in the probate
court before the creditors can file an action
directly, against the distributees. Such is not the
situation, however, in the case at bar. The
complaint herein was filed after the intestate
Case Digests Page 1 of 4
 proceedings had terminated and the estate
finally distributed to the heirs.
Case No. 2: BETTY T. CHUA, JENNIFER T. CHUA-LOCSIN,
BENISON T. CHUA, and BALDWIN T. CHUA, petitioners vs.
ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents
Facts:
 In 1999, a petition for letters of administration
was filed by herein petitioners with RTC Pasay,
which in return, appointed Betty Chua as
administratrix of the intestate estate of her
husband, deceased Jose Chua. Thereafter, she
submitted to the trial court an inventory of all
the real and personal properties of the deceased.
 One of the creditors of the deceased, Absolute
Management Corporation, filed a claim on the
estate in the amount of ₱63,699,437.74. It
noticed that the deceased’s shares of stocks with
Ayala Sales Corporation and Ayala Construction
Supply, Inc. were not included in the inventory of
assets. As a consequence, it filed a motion to
require Betty T. Chua to explain why she did not
report these shares of stocks in the inventory.
 Through a reply, Betty T. Chua alleged that these
shares had already been assigned and
transferred to other parties prior to the death of
her husband, Jose L. Chua. She attached to her
reply the deeds of assignment which allegedly
constituted proofs of transfer. Judge Dumatol
accepted the explanation as meritorious.
 Absolute Management Corporation, suspecting
that the documents attached to Betty T. Chua’s
reply were spurious and simulated, filed a
motion for the examination of the supposed
transferees. xxx It premised its motion on
Section 6, Rule 87, Revised Rules of Court, infra,
which states that when a person is suspected of
having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away
any of the properties of the deceased, a creditor
may file a complaint with the trial court and the
trial court may cite the suspected person to
appear before it and be examined under oath on
the matter of such complaint.
 Petitioners opposed to respondent’s motion
arguing that said provision finds no application in
this case. The RTC denied AMC’s motion. CA
Special Proceedings
reversed and pointed out that the presentation
of the deeds of assignment executed by the
decedent in petitioners’ favor does not
automatically negate the existence of
concealment. The appellate court stated that it is
a common occurrence in estate proceedings for
heirs to execute simulated deeds of transfer
which conceal and place properties of the
decedent beyond the reach of creditors. Hence,
this petition.
Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the
trial court to give due course to the Motion for
Examination.
Ruling: YES.
 The SC cited Section 6, Rule 87 of the Rules of
Court. Section 6 of Rule 87 seeks to secure
evidence from persons suspected of having
possession or knowledge of the properties left by
a deceased person, or of having concealed,
embezzled or conveyed any of the properties of
the deceased
 The court which acquires jurisdiction over the
properties of a deceased person through the
filing of the corresponding proceedings has
supervision and control over these properties.
The trial court has the inherent duty to see to it
that the inventory of the administrator lists all
the properties, rights and credits which the law
requires the administrator to include in his
inventory. The court also has the inherent power
to determine what properties, rights and credits
of the deceased the administrator should include
or exclude in the inventory. An heir or person
interested in the properties of a deceased may
call the court’s attention that certain properties,
rights or credits are left out from the inventory.
In such a case, it is likewise the court’s duty to
hear the observations of such party. The court
has the power to determine if such observations
deserve attention and if such properties belong
prima facie to the estate.
 However, in such proceedings the trial court has
no authority to decide whether the properties,
real or personal, belong to the estate or to the
persons examined. If after such examination
there is good reason to believe that the person
examined is keeping properties belonging to the
Rule 87: Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators
estate, then the administrator should file an
ordinary action in court to recover the same.
Inclusion of certain shares of stock by the
administrator in the inventory does not
automatically deprive the assignees of their
shares. They have a right to be heard on the
question of ownership, when that property is
properly presented to the court.
 In the present case, some of the transferees of
the shares of stock do not appear to be heirs of
the decedent. Neither do they appear to be
parties to the intestate proceedings. Taken in this
light, there is no reason why the trial court
should disallow the examination of the alleged
transferees of the shares of stocks. This is only
for purposes of eliciting information or securing
evidence from persons suspected of concealing
or conveying some of the decedent’s properties
to the prejudice of creditors. Petitioners’
admission that these persons are the decedent’s
assignees does not automatically negate
concealment of the decedent’s assets on their
part. The assignment might be simulated so as to
place the shares beyond the reach of creditors.
In case the shares are eventually included in the
estate, this inventory is merely provisional and is
not determinative of the issue of ownership. A
separate action is necessary for determination of
ownership and recovery of possession.
 In the present case, Absolute as a creditor of the
decedent filed the petition after the trial court
denied its Motion for examination. Absolute
questioned the ruling in favor of the
administratrix and heirs of the decedent.
Although as a creditor, Absolute does have the
remedy of filing another case to recover such
properties, its Motion for examination was
intended merely to investigate and take
testimony in preparation for an independent
action. Aside from the administratrix and the
heirs of the decedent, Absolute also sought to
examine the supposed assignees of the
decedent’s shares, who are third persons with
respect to the probate proceedings. The Motion
was a preparatory move sanctioned by the Rules
of Court. The denial of Absolute’s Motion was an
interlocutory order not subject to appeal. The
order of denial may, however, be challenged
Case Digests Page 2 of 4
 before a superior court through a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65
CASE DIGEST #3
MARSCHALL vs. ANTHOLTZ
54 PHIL 448
FACTS:
Walter Toehl was the manager of Behn, Meyer & Co and
also its chemist. He was also the owner of a parcel of land
located in Sta. Ana, Manila. Toehl contracted Antholtz to
manage the land as oil mill. The two agreed that Antholtz
would conduct the business in his own name. Meanwhile,
Antholtz was the owner of A. Murray & Co. Toehl assumed
possession of the corporation with a view to reviving it
using the assets of the oil mill. After Toehl’s death, it was
found that he was short in his account with Behn to the
extent of P150 Million. A claim was made against the
estate of Toehl. Marschall was appointed administrator of
the estate, and the present action was institute to recover
possession of the oil mill property and hold Antholtz
personally liable. Behn presupposes that Toehl and
Antholtz were in collusion to put the money in the oil mill.
ISSUE: WON Antholtz is liable.
RULING:
YES. In section 711 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is
declared that if any person, before the granting of letters
testamentary or of administration on the estate of a
deceased person, embezzles, or alienates, any of the
effects of such deceased person, such person shall be
liable to an action in favor of the executor or administrator
of such estate for double the value of the property sold,
embezzled, or alienated, to be recovered for the benefit of
the estate. But this provision has reference primarily to
funds that are lost by embezzlement or alienation, and it
cannot be understood as making the manager of a going
concern liable for proceeds of sales applied by him to the
proper uses of the business, as occurred in this case. The
proof shows that the personal property other than the
products of the mill, sold by Antholtz in the manner
mentioned, was sold with the consent of the manager of
Behn, Meyer & Co., H. Mij., and with the consent of the
Special Proceedings
administrator of Walter Toehl, and the proceeds of these
sales, as well as the proceeds of the products of the mill,
were applied by Antholtz to the obligations incurred by
him in running the business, without the improper
diversion of a single cent
CASE DIGEST #4
[ GR No. L-17175, Jul 31, 1962 ]
RICARDO M. GUTIERREZ v. LUCIA MILAGROS BARRETO
DATU
115 Phil. 741
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Facts:
In 1940 Maria Gerardo Vda. de Barreto, owner of 371
hectares of fishpond lands in Pampanga, leased the same
to appellant Gutierrez for a term to expire on May 1, 1947.
On November 1, 1941, pursuant to a decision of the
Department of Public Works rendered after due
investigation, the dikes of the fishponds were opened at
several points, resulting in their destruction and in the loss
of great quantities of fish inside, to the damage and
prejudice of the lessee.
In 1956, the lessor having died in 1948 and the
corresponding testate proceeding to settle her estate
having been opened, Gutierrez filed a claim therein for two
items: first, for the sum of P32,000.00 representing
advance rentals he had paid to the decedent and second,
for the sum of P60,000.00 as damages in the concept of
unearned profits, that is, profits which the claimant failed
to realize because of the breach of the lease contract
allegedly committed by the lessor.
On June 7, 1957 appellant commenced the instant
ordinary civil action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
against the executrix of the testate estate for the recovery
Rule 87: Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators
of the same amount of P60,000.00 referred to as the
second item claimed in the administration proceeding.
In July 1957 appellant amended his claim in the testate
proceeding by withdrawing therefrom the item of
P60,000.00, leaving only the one for refund of advance
rentals in the sum of P32,000.00.
The court as sustained by the Court of appeals dismissed
the action on the ground that the claim should have been
prosecuted in the testate proceeding and not by ordinary
civil action.
Issue: whether or not his claim for damages based on
unrealized profits is a money claim against the estate of
the deceased Maria Gerardo vda. de Barreto within the
purview of Rule 87, Section 5.
Ruling: The word "claims" as used in statutes requiring
the presentation of claims against a decedent's estate is
generally construed to mean debts or demands of a
pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against
the deceased in his lifetime and could have been reduced
to simple money judgments; and among these are those
founded upon contract. The claim in this case is based on
contract specifically, on a breach thereof. It falls squarely
under section 5 of Rule 87.
The only actions that may be instituted against the
executor or administrator are those to recover real or
personal property from the estate, or to enforce a lien
thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to
person or property, real or personal. Rule 88, section 1.
The instant suit is not one of them.
The orders appealed from are affirmed.
CASE DIGEST NO. 5
RIOFERIO
vs.
Case Digests Page 3 of 4
COURT OF APPEALS Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence
recognizes two exceptions, viz: (1) if the executor or
[G.R. No. 129008. January 13, 2004] administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit; and (2)
when the administrator is alleged to have participated in
TINGA, J.: the act complained of and he is made a party defendant. [
Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to seek judicial relief
Facts: to recover property of the estate is as compelling when
Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will leaving several there is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where
personal and real properties. Private there is an appointed administrator but he is either
respondents discovered that petitioner Teodora Rioferio (t disinclined to bring suit or is one of the guilty parties
he paramour) and her children executed an himself.
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person wit
h Quitclaim, real estate mortgages and
transfers involving the properties of the estate of the
decedent. To recover their rights, Alfonso “Clyde” P.
Orfinada III
fi l e d a Petition for Letters of Administration
praying that letters of administration encompassing the
estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. be issued to him.

Issue:
Whether the heirs (respondents) may bring suit
to recover property of the estate pending the
appointment of an administrator is the issue in this case?

Ruling:

Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs

without doubt have legal personality to bring suit in behalf
of the estate of the decedent in accordance
with the provision
of Article 777 of the New Civil Code “that (t)he rights to su
ccession are transmitted from the moment of
the death of the decedent.” The provision in turn is the
foundation of the principle that the property, rights and
obligations to the extent and value of the inheritance of a
person are transmitted through his death to another or
others by his will or by operation of law. Even if
administration proceedings have already been
commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an
administrator has not yet been appointed. The heirs
cannot be expected to wait for the appointment of
an administrator; then wait further to see if the
administrator appointed would care enough to file
a suit to protect the rights and the interests of
the deceased; and in the mean time do nothing while the
rights and the properties of the decedent are violated or
dissipated

Special Proceedings Rule 87: Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators Case Digests Page 4 of 4