Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O. Sheker

A contingent money claim filed against an estate in a probate proceeding is an incidental matter, not an initiatory pleading, and thus does not require a certification against non-forum shopping.

The holographic will of Alice O. Sheker was admitted to probate by the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, which subsequently directed all creditors to file their claims against the estate. Petitioner filed a contingent claim for agent's commission and reimbursement of expenses. Respondent moved to dismiss the claim for failure to pay docket fees, attach a certification against non-forum shopping, and provide a written explanation for non-personal service. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the claim without prejudice.

• Probate Proceeding: The RTC admitted the holographic will of Alice O. Sheker and issued an order directing all creditors to file their respective claims against the estate.
• Contingent Money Claim: Petitioner filed a contingent claim for an agent's commission of approximately ₱206,250.00, contingent upon the sale of certain estate parcels of land, and ₱275,000.00 for reimbursement of expenses incurred or to be incurred in negotiating the sale.
• Motion to Dismiss: Respondent moved to dismiss the money claim on three grounds: (1) non-payment of the requisite docket fee under Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court; (2) failure to attach a certification against non-forum shopping; and (3) failure to attach a written explanation why the claim was not filed and served personally.
• RTC Dismissal: The RTC dismissed the money claim without prejudice based on the grounds advanced by respondent. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.

• Suppletory Application of Rules: Petitioner argued that the RTC erred in strictly applying the rules of ordinary civil actions to a probate proceeding. Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court provides that rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only in a suppletory manner; thus, the requirements of a certification against non-forum shopping, a written explanation for non-personal filing, and the payment of docket fees upon filing should not have been strictly enforced to dismiss the claim.

• Procedural Deficiencies: Respondent countered that the money claim must be dismissed for failure to pay the requisite docket fees prescribed under Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
• Lack of Certification: Respondent maintained that the dismissal was proper due to the petitioner's failure to attach a certification against non-forum shopping.
• Lack of Written Explanation: Respondent asserted that the claim should be dismissed for failure to attach a written explanation why the money claim was not filed and served personally.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping: Whether a contingent claim filed in a probate proceeding must contain a certification against non-forum shopping, failing which it should be dismissed.
• Docket Fees: Whether a contingent claim filed against an estate in a probate proceeding must be dismissed for failing to pay the docket fees at the time of filing.
• Written Explanation for Service: Whether a contingent claim filed in a probate proceeding must be dismissed for failing to contain a written explanation on service and filing by registered mail.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping: Dismissal was erroneous. A contingent money claim against an estate is not an initiatory pleading; the probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for allowance of the decedent's will. A money claim is an incidental matter in the main action for settlement, akin to a motion for creditors' claims to be recognized, and therefore does not require a certification against non-forum shopping.
• Docket Fees: Dismissal was improper. The trial court already has jurisdiction over the action for settlement of the estate. Non-payment of filing fees for a money claim against the estate is not a ground for dismissal because the filing fees constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, or the court may order their payment within a reasonable time.
• Written Explanation for Service: Dismissal was unjustified. Personal service and filing are preferred, but only mandatory when practicable. Given the great distance between the petitioner's office in Makati City and respondent's counsel and the RTC in Iligan City, personal service is impracticable, rendering a written explanation superfluous. Procedural rules should be relaxed and liberally construed in the interest of substantial justice, especially considering the ruling spirit of probate law is the speedy settlement of estates.

• Applicability of Rules of Civil Actions to Special Proceedings — In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary civil actions shall be applicable to special proceedings as far as practicable. "Practicable" means possible to practice or perform, and application must not pose an obstacle to the proceedings. The rules are not merely suppletory; they apply whenever their application does not obstruct the special proceeding.
• Nature of Money Claims in Probate — A money claim against a decedent's estate is an incidental matter in the main action for settlement, akin to a motion, and is not an initiatory pleading. The office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation, but to bring a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case.

• "The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings... a money claim against an estate is more akin to a motion for creditors' claims to be recognized and taken into consideration in the proper disposition of the properties of the estate."
• "Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with."
• "The law strictly requires the prompt presentation and disposition of the claims against the decedent's estate in order to settle the affairs of the estate as soon as possible, pay off its debts and distribute the residue."

• Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160479, June 8, 2005 — Followed. Defined the office of a motion as bringing an incidental matter rather than initiating new litigation, applied by analogy to characterize a money claim in probate as non-initiatory.
• Pascual v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120575, December 16, 1998 — Followed. Held that non-payment of docket fees for a money claim against an estate is not a ground for dismissal because the court already has jurisdiction and the fees constitute a lien on the judgment.
• Maceda v. De Guzman Vda. de Macatangay, G.R. No. 164947, January 31, 2006 — Followed. Clarified that personal service and filing is the general rule, but resort to other modes is allowed when impracticable, provided a written explanation is given.
• Musa v. Amor — Applied. Recognized that great distance makes personal service impracticable, rendering a written explanation superfluous, justifying the liberal application of Section 11, Rule 13.
• Union Bank of the Phil. v. Santibañez, G.R. No. 149926, February 23, 2005 — Cited. Emphasized the mandatory nature of filing money claims to ensure the speedy settlement of the estate and the protection of the estate by informing the administrator of claims against it.

• Section 2, Rule 72, Rules of Court — Governs the applicability of rules of civil actions to special proceedings; applied to clarify that ordinary rules apply in the absence of special provisions, as far as practicable, and are not merely suppletory.
• Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86, Rules of Court — Mandates the filing of money claims against a decedent after granting letters of testamentary or administration; applied to show that claims are filed pursuant to the main probate action, not as initiatory pleadings.
• Section 2, Rule 141, Rules of Court — Provides that filing fees shall constitute a lien on the judgment; applied to hold that non-payment of docket fees upon filing a money claim does not warrant dismissal.
• Section 11, Rule 13, Rules of Court — Requires personal service and filing whenever practicable, with a written explanation if other modes are used; applied with discretion, recognizing that great distance renders personal service impracticable, excusing the lack of written explanation.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Ruben T. Reyes