INTESTATE ESTATE OF ARSENIO E. AFAN, DECEASED. MARIAN AFAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. APOLINARIO S. DE GUZMAN, CREDITOR AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal, taken by Apolinario S. de Guzman, from an order
of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dated July 27, 1957.

It appears that, on July 12, 1957, De Guzman filed, in this special
proceeding for the settlement of intestate estate of Arsenio E. Afan, a
claim for P1,000, allegedly due from the latter, with interest thereon,
within 30 days from August 16, 1949, as set forth in a promissory note
then issued by Afan. On July 22, 1957, the administratrix of his estate
objected to the consideration of the claim upon the ground, among
others, that it had been filed long after the expiration of the period
for the presentation of claims against said estate. For this reason,
the lower court issued the order appealed from, refusing to entertain
the aforementioned claim. De Guzman invokes, in support of his appeal,
section 2, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, reading:

“Time within which claims shall be filed.—In
the notice provided in the preceding section, the court shall state the
time for the filing of claims against the estate, “which shall not be
more than twelve nor less than six months after the date of the first
publication of the notice. However, at any time before an order of
distribution is entered, on application of a creditor who has failed to
file his claim within the time previously limited, the court may, for
cause shown and on such terms as are equitable, allow such claims to
be, filed within a time not exceeding one month.”

Relying upon this provision, De Guzman maintains that the lower
court should have entertained his claim, the same having been filed
prior to the distribution of the estate of the deceased. This pretense
is not borne out, however, by the rule above quoted.

The second sentence thereof clothes the court with authority to
permit the filing: of a claim after the lapse of the period stated in
the first sentence, but prior to said distribution, subject to the
following conditions, namely: (1) there must be an application
therefor; (2) a cause must be shown why the permission should be
granted; and (3) the extension of time granted for the filing of the
claim shall not exceed one (1) month.

De Guzman has not sought permission to file his claim. Moreover, the
same does not allege any reason why he should be excused for his
failure to file the claim in this proceeding within the period stated
in the Rules of Court. Again, whether or not the reasons given—and none
were set forth in De Guzman’s claim—are sufficient, rests upon the
discretion of the court (Roguera vs. Tanodra, 81 Phil., 404; Umpig, et al. vs.
De Gala, et al., 96 Phil., 77.; 50 Off. Gaz., 5305), and the record
before us does not show that the lower court has abused its discretion
in acting as it did in the present case. De Guzman now alleges, for the
first time, a “cause” why the lower court should allegedly have
considered his claim. He says, in his brief (p. 6, thereof) that “he
had no actual knowledge of the fact that the estate of the deceased * *
* was then already (in the process of settlement * * *.” He did not
explain why he refrained from making such averment either in his claim
or in the motion, filed by him in the lower court, for a
reconsideration of the order appealed from. The reason is, however, not
difficult to surmise—he had actual knowledge of the present
proceeding long before the filing of his claim therein on July 27,
1957. To be precise, he was aware of its existence as early as August,
1955.

In this connection, it appears that, during the lifetime of Afan, or
on May 24, 1950, De Guzman instituted, against him, Civil Case No. 1148
of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, to recover the amount of the
promissory note above referred to. On appeal, the decision of said
court in favor of De Guzman was set aside, and a trial de novo ordered,
by the Court of Appeals, in case CA-G.R. No. 7340-E, Sometime after the
records had been remanded to the lower court, Afan died. On August 15,
1955, that court issued an order requiring counsel for his heirs “to
submit to the court the number of the intestate estate proceedings of the deceased Arsenio R. Afan now pending
in the Court of First Instance of Manila.” This order was complied with
on August 30, 1955, by the filing with the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, in said Case No. 1148, of a “notification” containing the
required information, copy of which “notification” Was served upon
counsel for De Guzman, as plaintiff therein. On January 18, 1956, his
counsel filed in said case a motion for the appointment of a legal
representative of the deceased Afan, to substitute him as defendant
therein. Accordingly, on January 21, 1956, said court gave De Guzman
five (5) days within which to submit the names of the legal heirs of
Afan who may be appointed as his legal representative. On. January 24,
1956 De Guzman filed, therefore, with the aforementioned court, a
statement, entitled “compliance”, setting forth the names, ages and
addresses of the heirs of the deceased, “as shown by the records in.
Special Proceedings No. 26858, entitled ‘Intestate estate of Arsenio R.
Afan before the Court of First Instance Manila,” with the prayer that
said “heirs be substitute as party defendants” in Case No. 1148, “in
place of the deceased Arsenio R. Afan.” Yet, De Guzman choose not to
file his claim in such proceeding until July 27, 1957, one year and a
half after the filing of his aforementioned “compliance.”

Instead of furnishing a “cause” for the extension of the
reglementary period for the filing of his claim, this omission on the
part of De Guzman fully justifies the denial of such extension and the
order appealed from. We Have already held that failure to file a claim
within the time provided therefor upon the sole ground that the
claimant was negotiating with one of the heirs for payment, is not
sufficient to justify extension (In Re: Estate of De Dios, 24 Phil.,
573, 576; see also Santos vs. Manarang, 27. Phil.,
209), and that, where a claimant knew of the death of the decedent and
for four (4) or five (5) months thereafter he did nothing to present
his claim, this can hardly be considered as a good excuse for such
neglect (In Re: Estate of Tiangco, 39 Phil., 967).

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against appellant Apolinario S. de Guzman.

It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Padilla, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., took no part.