IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF ILDEFONSO TAMBUNTING Y COSIAM, DECEASED. FILOMENA CONCEPCION, ADMINISTRATRIX AND APPELLANT, VS. ARSENIA TAMBUNTING AND CLARA TAMBUNTING, C…

AVANCEÑA, C.J.:

After the appointment of the committee on claims in the proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased Ildefonso Tambunting, Arsenia
Tambunting and Clara Tambunting presented their claims for P7,663.48 and
P6,999.94, respectively. On July 18, 1923, the committee rendered a partial
report to the Court of First Instance of Manila of their proceedings with a list
of the claims presented. It appears in this report that the claims of Arsenia
Tambunting and Clara Tambunting were admitted. On the 25th of August next, the
committee petitioned the court that their report filed with the clerk on July
19, 1923, be amended. At the bottom of this petition there appears the
following: “I agree: Filomena Concepcion—Attorneys for the estate of Ildefonso
Tambunting y Cosiam.”

On the 27th of September next, Filomena Concepcion, administratrix of the
estate, gave notice of her intention to appeal from the admission of the claims
of Arsenia Tambunting and Clara Tambunting.

It must be noted that the report of the committee was set for hearing by the
lower court on July 28, 1923; that on that date, the court, considering that
none of the parties in interest had been notified of the report of the
committee, and for the purpose of passing upon the said report, ordered the
committee to send a copy thereof to the interested parties; that on September
22d next, the lower court, finding that its order of July 28th had not been
complied with, ordered the committee to serve a copy of their report upon the
parties in interest within twenty-four hours, setting the same again for hearing
on Saturday next.

After these proceedings, the court, on November 2, 1923, holding that the
appeal taken by the administratrix of the estate from the admission of the
claims of Arsenia Tambunting and Clara Tambunting has been filed out of time and
that the decision of the committee in favor of those claims was already final,
ordered the payment thereof by the administratrix. The latter appealed from this
ruling. The only question raised in this appeal is whether or not the appeal
taken by the administratrix on September 27, 1923, from the ruling of the
committee, admitting the claims of Arsenia Tambunting and Clara Tambunting, as
shown in the report filed with the clerk of the court on July 19, 1923, was
presented within the time fixed by the law.

Section 773 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the administrator to
appeal to the Court of First Instance from the admission of any claim by the
committee on claims. The appeal, according to section 775, must be filed with
the clerk of the court within twenty-five days from the filing of the report of
the committee. The report of the committee having been filed on July 19, 1923,
and the appeal therefrom on September 27th of the same year, said appeal was
presented outside of the period of twenty-five days fixed by the law.

The appellant contends that the appeal must be filed after the court has
approved or disapproved the report of the committee. This contention finds
absolutely no support in law. The law does not require that after the filing of
the report of the committee, the court must approve or disapprove it. Upon this
point, it is declared that all the actions taken by the court in this
proceeding, setting the report of the committee for hearing in order to approve
or disapprove it, are not prescribed by the law. If the theory of the appellant
were good, the result would be that the appeal would not be from the ruling of
the committee but from the ruling of the court approving or disapproving that of
the committee. And from this theory an anomaly would result, namely, that by
virtue of the appeal interposed from this ruling of the court, the court itself
would have to review its own ruling.

The appellant contends also that at any rate the time for filing her appeal
must be computed not from the filing of the report of the committee with the
clerk, but from the notice of the filing of said report. But even considering
the question from this standpoint of view of the appellant, it appears that she
had notice of the filing of this report with the clerk of the court on August
25, 1923, when she gave her assent to the petition of the committee that said
report be amended. Appellant’s assent to this petition implies knowledge on her
part, at least from that date, that the report of the committee was on file in
the clerk’s office. So that even under the theory of tine appellant, the time
for the filing of her appeal must run from August 25, 1923, and it appearing
that this appeal was filed on September 27th next, it was filed outside of the
twenty-five days fixed by the law.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So
ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, and Romualdez,
JJ., concur.