Spec Pro Assignment No 2.docx

University Of San Jose – Recoletos Magallanes Street, Cebu City, Philippines

Special Proceedings (Saturday 3:30pm – 5:30pm) Submitted by: Jake Zhan C. Adriano Submitted to: Atty. Brenda Tangarorang

I.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Case no. 1: Reyes vs Rosenstock GR. No. 23718 August 28, 1925 Doctrine: Mortgage Debt Due from the Estate – if the deceased left debts, the creditor may: 1) Choose to file a money claim against the estate 2) Foreclose the mortgage by an action and making the executor or administrator the defendant 3) Rely on the security or mortgage alone by filing an action for foreclosure on the mortgage where the administrator or executor is the defendant In all these remedies, the creditor can only choose one and if he chooses any of these three, he abandons the others, and if he fails to choose, he fails in all. But, this is without prejudice of the executor or administrator to redeem the mortgaged property. Facts: Elser during his lifetime obtained a mortgage on April 30, 1923 for the sum of 64,242.39 Php and for the foreclosure of a certain real mortgage property and sale thereof to satisfy judgment. Pending proceedings, Elser died on June 18, 1923. Then, Rosenstock was appointed as executor of the estate of Elser. Elser’s property was then sold to satisfy the decree but left a deficiency judgment. Now, the contingent claimant is aggrieved from the deficiency and filed a claim against the estate of Elser after his death. Hence, the present petition. Issue/s: 1) WON a contingent claimant may be allowed to claim against the estate of Elser who filed its claim after the latter’s death. Ruling: NO. The original judgment in this case was personally rendered against the deceased while he was still living and the final judgment upon which the property was sold was rendered against Rosenstock as executor of Elser’s estate. A contingent claim is one which has not accrued, and which is dependent on the happening of a future event. A contingent claim, within the rule that claims against the estate which are not contingent are barred if not presented within a certain time, is one depending upon something thereafter to happen, such a claim is not contingent after the happening of an event. A contingent claim is a claim against a decedent, not absolute or certain, but depending upon some event after the death of testator or intestate, which may or may not happen. A subsisting demand against the estate of a deceased person which had matured and was capable of being enforced during the lifetime of the deceased is not a contingent claim. Case no. 2: BPI vs Concepcion GR No. L-27701 July 21, 1928 Facts: Concepcion executed a PN in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P342,372.64, payable on demand, and as security for payment, deposited 700 shares of the Philippine National Bank as collateral with the plaintiff and gave it a

mortgage on 5,680 square meters of land, with improvements, situated on R. Hidalgo Street in Manila. It defaulted in payment so foreclosure proceedings were instituted. Elser entered into negotiations with the Concepcions and offered to take over the mortgaged property and assume the mortgage debt. To this the Concepcions agreed on the condition that they be relieved of all liability for the debt. Elser wrote the bank informing it of the agreement with the Concepcions but the bank did not reply. It appeared that it was unwilling to release the Concepcions from their liability for the mortgage debt and insisted on their confessing a judgment in the foreclosure proceedings. Concepcions refused to do unless the bank would agree to bid in the mortgage property for the full amount of the judgment. Elser wrote to the bank again with the understanding that the bank would bid in the land at the foreclosure sale for the full amount of the judgment and sell it to him for the same price. No direct reply was given and Elser invited plaintiff to a conference with Nolting, the president of the bank, in regard to the matter. The negotiations did not lead to any action on the part of the bank, but, Elser entered into an agreement in the form of bilateral deed of sale, with V. Concepcion & Hijos, Inc., and Venancio Concepcion. The bank never gave notice of its conformity with the agreement. It petitioned the court to include Henry W. Elser as defendant in the complaint, on the strength of the obligations assumed by him in said agreement. Elser died and the plaintiff asked that the administrator of the estate, C. W. Rosenstock, be substituted in his place as defendants, and that the action be continued against Rosenstock in the capacity on the ground that this action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage. Issue/s: WON BPI’s failure to present its claims to the committee, it must be regarded as having elected to rely on its mortgage and therefore have no personal judgment against Elser’s estate. Ruling: YES. The mortgagee has the election of one out of three courses: 1) he may abandon his security and share in the distribution of the assets of the estate; 2) he may foreclose, secure a deficiency judgment and prove his deficiency judgment before the committee; or 3) he may rely upon his security alone, in which case he can receive no share in the distribution of assets of the estate. In this case BPI did not abandon the security and took no steps of any sort before the committee within the time limit provided by sections 689 and 690 of the code of civil procedure. The committee ceased to function long ago, and the bank has now nothing to rely on except the mortgage. intentionally or not, it has bought itself within the 3rd course provided for in section 708; it has no alternative.

Comparative Report The facts in both cases involves claims against the estate of the decedent due to a mortgage where in the first case the issue is about when should a contingent claim be filed and the claimant relied on the foreclosing of the mortgaged property but was deficient which prompted the claimant to file a claim against the estate. While in the second case the bank choose to rely upon the security alone which has the effect of not receiving its share in the distribution of assets of the estate to recover on the mortgage. The court in

both cases applied the provision of section 708 of code of civil procedure, wherein the mortgagee is given the right to select one out of three remedies: 1) he may abandon his security and share in the distribution of the assets of the estate; 2) he may foreclose, secure a deficiency judgment and prove his deficiency judgment before the committee; or 3) he may rely upon his security alone, in which case he can receive no share in the distribution of assets of the estate. Thus, a creditor of a state should timely file his claims against the estate, otherwise it shall be barred forever and if a creditor chooses one of the remedies, it is deemed that he abandons the other remedies or if he fails to choose one of these remedies, then he shall be barred to file a claim against the estate forever. Case no. 3: Bautista vs Tiongson GR. No. L-4232 November 7, 1908 Doctrine: An administrator, who is not a heir, has no right to bring an action for partition. Facts: Plaintiff was appointed as administrator of the intestate estate of Ciriaco Tiongson who owned pro indiviso shares of parcels of land and the other half belongs to defendant, Aquilina Tiongson, the latter and her husband, Domingo Tomacruz administered the properties, having collected the rentals without rendering an accounting of their administration to anyone. Now, plaintiff prayed before the court to order the properties to be partitioned in accordance with law and that the defendants be instructed to render an account of their administration and deliver the balance to the plaintiff. Issues/s: WON an administrator may institute the action for partition. Ruling: NO. Sections 181 and 196 does not authorize an administrator of the property of an intestate to bring an action demanding the partition of real estate owned pro indiviso by the deceased, whose property he is administering, and by another person. The law refers to a coheir, or other person interested in the undivided property held, because any one such persons is a real party concerned in the partition. In cases like the present, where the property is held by a person, not as a coheir but as the exclusive owner, the right of action for partition, which supposes joint ownership and community of property, pertains only to the heirs of the late Ciriaco Tiongson, not to the administrator who, when claiming the division of real estate not included in the inventory, or which he did not take charge of on commencing to exercise office, but which is alleged to belong to the estate, is not authorized to represent the intestate succession of the property administered by him; because the latter, as successors to the deceased, are the only parties who may maintain such an action for partition of real estate held pro indiviso by coheirs or owners in common. Case no. 4: Albano vs Agtarap GR No. L-7075 March 25, 1912 Doctrine: Facts: Lucio Agtarap owned several Issue/s: Ruling:

Comparative Report

II.

Case Digest Case no.1: Echaus vs Blanco GR No. 30453

Doctrine: Facts: Issue/s: Ruling: Case no.2: PNB vs CA GR No. 121597 Doctrine: Facts: Issue/s: Ruling: Case no.3: Lopez vs Lopez Doctrine: Facts: Issue/s: Ruling: Case no.4: Lopez vs Garcia Doctrine: Facts: Issue/s: Ruling: Case no.5: Marcial vs Antholoz Doctrine: Facts: Issue/s: Ruling: Case no.6: Ingersoll vs Chiutienly Doctrine: Facts: Issue/s: Ruling: