IN RE: INTESTATE ESTATE OF BEATRIZ C. DE RAMA. DECEASED. ANGELO O. DE RAMA; PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. CHERIE PALILEO, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE.

The facts of this case are not
disputed: In connection with the proceeding for the settlement of the intestate
estate of the deceased Beatriz Cosio de Rama, and pursuant to the order of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal before which the proceeding is
pending, a notice to all persons with money claims against the deceased to file
their said claims within six months, was duly published, and first notice
appearing in the August 13, 1958 issue of the Manila Chronicle. On
January 27,
1959, the
administrator filed an inventory of the estate, showing assets amounting to
P139,596.77 and liabilities in the sum of P33,012.95. The period provided in the
published notice having expired without anybody filing any claim against the
deceased, the administrator, upon order of the court, submitted a final account
of the estate and a project of partition, which were approved on
May 12,
1960.
Under date of June 7,
1961,
however, Cherie Palileo petitioned the court for
permission to file a claim in the proceeding, alleging that in the decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 22556-B, promulgated on May 6, 1961, she
obtained a money judgment against the deceased Beatriz C. de Rama; that although the lower court decided in her favor the
question of ownership and possession of a real property involved in the case, it
was only the Court of Appeals that granted money judgment, when the case was
decided on appeal. The administrator opposed this petition on the ground that
the claim was filed beyond the period provided in the notice to
creditor.

By order of August 3,
1961, the
lower court sustained the claimant and allowed her to file her claim within one
month from receipt of said order, it appearing that no final decree of
distribution has as yet been entered in the case. This appeal from the aforesaid
order, brought by the administrator, raises the issue of when money claims
against a deceased person may be filed in the proceeding for the settlement of
the estate of such deceased person.

Section 2 of Rule 87 of the old
Rules of Court (now Rule 86) provides:

“SEC. 2. Time within which claims shall be
filed.-In the notice provided in section 1, the court shall state
the time for the filing of claims against the estate, which shall not be more
than twelve nor loss 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 arc
equitable, allow such claim to be filed within a time not exceeding one month.”

It is clear from the foregoing
that the period prescribed in the notice to creditors is not exclusive; money
claims against the estate may be allowed any time before an order of
distribution is entered, at the discretion of the court, for cause and upon such
terms as are equitable. This extension of the period shall not exceed one
month,^[1] from the issuance of the
order authorizing such extension.^[2]

It is not controverted in the instant case that no order of
distribution of the estate has as yet been made. Appellant, however, charges
that the lower court committed an abuse of discretion in issuing the disputed
order without sufficient ground or cause therefor. The
petition of claimant-appellee, for permission to file
a claim in the proceeding, was based on the fact that the award of damages in
her favor, against the deceased Beatriz C. de Rama,
was contained in the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G1. R. No. 22556-R
which was promulgated on May 6,
1961 or
after the 6-month period provided in the notice to creditors had already
elapsed. It is her contention that she could not have failed a money claim
against the estate before the promulgation of said decision because although the
lower court in that case upheld her right to the ownership and possession of the
building subject thereof, no damages were adjudged in her favor. Considering
this argument, the lower court found it sufficient to justify the relaxation of
the rule and extension of the period within which to file her claim. In the
circumstances, the action taken by the lower court cannot be considered an abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to justify its
reversal by this Court.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in
the order appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

^[1] Quisumbing vs. Guison, 76 Phil.
730; Edmunds vs. Phil. Trust Co., 87 Phil., 405; 48 Off. Gaz., 139; Paulin vs. Aquino, G. R. No. L-11267. March 20, 1958; Afan vs. De Guzman 107 Phil. 839.
^[2] Paulin vs. Aquino, supra.