FELIX DONASCO AND NATIVIDAD DOFITAS, PETITIONERS, VS. CONRADO BARRIOS AND CLAUDIO PARREÑAS, RESPONDENTS.

Donasco versus Barrios

The Case

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Felix Donasco and Natividad Dofitas against Conrado Barrios and Claudio Parreñas, arising from the settlement of the estate of the deceased Eugenio Parreñas and Antonina Dohino in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The petitioners had filed money claims before a committee on claims and appraisals, and those claims were allowed in the committee's report. The respondent Claudio Parreñas, an heir, later opposed the report, and the trial court set the claims for a new hearing. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul that order. The case matters because it fixes the rule on the finality of a committee's report on claims: under the old Code of Civil Procedure, the report needed no judicial approval, and it became final if no appeal was perfected within twenty-five days from its submission. It is a compact lesson on how a probate court loses the power to reopen claims once the period to appeal has lapsed.

Procedural History

The proceedings began in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, in the special proceedings covering the estate of the deceased spouses. The court had earlier issued an order for summary distribution in favor of Claudio Parreñas, but that order was set aside upon motion of Natividad Dofitas. The court then reopened the proceedings and, upon the recommendation of the parties, appointed Bernardo Donguines as administrator. At the administrator's suggestion, Teleaforo Gedang and Simon Miagan were named commissioners of claims and appraisals. The petitioners filed their claims before the committee, no opposition was made, and the committee's report allowing the claims was filed with the court. Claudio Parreñas then interposed an opposition to the report, claiming he had not been notified as an heir of the hearings and that the administrator and the petitioners were represented by the same attorney. The trial court, in effect, disapproved the committee's report and set the petitioners' claims for hearing. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, and when that motion was denied, they came to the Supreme Court by petition for a writ of certiorari.

Facts

In the special proceedings for the estate of Eugenio Parreñas and Antonina Dohino, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo first issued an order for summary distribution in favor of Claudio Parreñas. That order was set aside upon motion of Natividad Dofitas, and the court reopened the proceedings. Upon the recommendation of the parties, the court appointed Bernardo Donguines as administrator of the estate.

At the administrator's suggestion, Teleaforo Gedang and Simon Miagan were named commissioners of claims and appraisals. Before this committee, Felix Donasco and Natividad Dofitas filed claims amounting to 851 pesos and 66 centavos. No opposition whatsoever was made to these claims, and the committee's report, allowing them, was filed with the court on June 4, 1940.

On July 27, 1940, the respondent Claudio Parreñas opposed the report. He alleged that, as an heir, he had not been notified of the hearings on the petitioners' claims, and that although the administrator was present at those hearings, the administrator and the petitioners were represented by the same attorney. On September 18, 1940, the trial court in effect disapproved the committee's report and set the hearing of the petitioners' claims for October 4, 1940. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, and they came to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not the report of the committee on claims and appraisals, filed on June 4, 1940, required the approval of the trial court before it could take effect.
• Whether or not the failure to perfect an appeal within twenty-five days after the submission of the report gave the report finality, so that the trial court could no longer disapprove it and reopen the claims.
• Whether or not there was in fact any irregularity in the hearings of the petitioners' claims.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on the report of the committee on claims and appraisals. The Court states the governing rule in its own words:

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the report filed on June 4, 1940 did not require any approval of the lower court which could have formally passed upon the petitioners' claims only if an appeal was perfected within twenty-five days after the submission of the report.

This rule bears directly on the case because it means the report took effect by itself, and the trial court's power to pass upon the claims depended entirely on a timely appeal, which was never made.

The decision also refers to the legal duty of the administrator before the committee:

to attend the sessions of the committee and to protect the estate against the allowance of unjust claims

This duty bears on the case because the administrator's presence at the hearings answers the respondent's claim of irregularity.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the report of the committee, filed on June 4, 1940, did not require any approval of the lower court. The report stood on its own under the Code of Civil Procedure.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court could have formally passed upon the petitioners' claims only if an appeal was perfected within twenty-five days after the submission of the report. No such appeal was taken. The lack of an appeal gave finality to the report, and the trial court erred in disapproving it and setting the claims for a new hearing.

On the third issue, the Court declined to find any irregularity in the hearings of the petitioners' claims. The administrator had been appointed upon the recommendation of all the parties interested, and he had the legal duty to attend the sessions of the committee and to protect the estate against the allowance of unjust claims. He was present. The Court therefore found merit in the petition.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under the Code of Civil Procedure, the report of the committee on claims and appraisals does not require the approval of the probate court to take effect. Second, the court may formally pass upon the claims only if an appeal is perfected within twenty-five days after the submission of the report. Third, absent such an appeal, the report becomes final, and the court may no longer disapprove it or reopen the claims. Fourth, the presence of the administrator at the hearings of the committee, in fulfillment of his legal duty to attend the sessions and to protect the estate against the allowance of unjust claims, negates a claim of irregularity in those hearings.

Disposition

The petition was granted. The order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo of September 18, 1940, and all subsequent proceedings had thereunder, were annulled and set aside, with costs against the respondents other than the respondent Judge.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is this: the committee's report needs no approval of the court, and it becomes final if no appeal is perfected within twenty-five days from its submission. Examiners use this case to test the finality of a committee's report on claims and the effect of the lapse of the period to appeal on the probate court's power to reopen the claims.