Santos vs.

Manarang

Facts: Don Lucas de Ocampo died on November 18, 1906, possessed of certain real and personal property which, by his last will
and testament, 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. This committee submitted its report to the court on June 27, 1908. On July 14, 1908, 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. This petition was denied by the court, and on November 21, 1910, the plaintiff instituted the
present proceedings against 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 petitioner’s claim is within the purview of the committee’s jurisdiction.

Ruling: YES

The petition of the plaintiff filed on November 21, 1910, wherein he asks that the administratrix be compelled to pay over to him
the amounts mentioned in the will as debts due him appears to be nothing more nor less than a complaint instituting an action
against the administratrix for the recovery of the sum of money. Obviously, the plaintiff is not seeking possession of or title to real
property or specific articles of personal property. When a committee is appointed as herein provided, no action or suit shall be
commenced or prosecute against the executor or administrator upon a claim against the estate to recover a debt due from the state;
but actions to recover the seizing and possession of real estate and personal chattels claimed by the estate may be commenced
against him. (Sec. 699, Code Civ. Proc.)

Plaintiff's argument at this point becomes obviously inconsistent. Under his first assignment of error he alleges that the committee
on claims should have been reconvened to pass upon his claim against the estate. It is clear that this committee has nothing to do
with legacies. It is true that a debt may be left as a legacy, either to the debtor (in which case it virtually amounts to a release), or
to a third person. But this case can only arise when the debt is anasset of the estate.

But it is said that the plaintiff's claims should be considered as partaking of the nature of a legacy and disposed of accordingly. If
this be perfect then the plaintiff would receive nothing until after all debts had been paid and the heirs by force of law had received
their shares. From any point of view the inevitable result is that there must be a hearing sometime before some tribunal to determine
the correctness of the debts recognized in the wills of deceased persons. This hearing, in the first instance, can not be had before
the court because the law does not authorize it. Such debtors must present their claims to the committee, otherwise their claims will
be forever barred.

For the foregoing reasons the orders appealed from are affirmed, with costs against the appellant.