Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1943 > January 1943 Decisions > G.R. No. 48533 January 30, 1943 - ANAK-PAWIS SANTA ROSA v. MATILDE DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

074 Phil 98:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 48533. January 30, 1943.]

ANAK-PAWIS SANTA ROSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MATILDE DE GUZMAN ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Perfecto V. Añonuevo for Appellant.

De los Reyes, Dimagiba & Reyes for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. MORTGAGE AGAINST DECEDENT’S ESTATE, PRESENTATION THEREOF BEFORE COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS IS A BAR TO A SUBSEQUENT ACTION FOR FORECLOSURE. — Appellant, which held a mortgage against the deceased, presented its claim in the latter’s intestate estate, but the claim was disallowed by the committee on claims. An appeal from the committee’s action was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Held: That appellant’s subsequent action to foreclose the mortgage did not lie. By presenting its claim before the committee on claims, appellant had forfeited its right to bring the action for foreclosure of the mortgage, inasmuch as under Rule 87, section 7, of the Rules of Court, a creditor may either file his claim before the committee on claims or foreclose the mortgage in an ordinary action in court, but he cannot avail himself of both remedies.

2. ID.; ID. — There is no merit in appellant’s contention that its petition before the committee on claims was for the foreclosure of the mortgage, and it therefore did not abandon the security. Said petition asked for: (1) the admission of the claim; and (2) the sale of the property and the application of the proceeds to said claim. However. inasmuch as the committee on claims had no power to order the foreclosure of the mortgage — such an order being proper only in an ordinary action in court for the foreclosure of the mortgage — the prayer for the sale of the lot was not in order and should be disregarded. By going before the committee on claims, this creditor irrevocably signified its desire to share in the general distribution of the assets of the estate, instead of foreclosing its mortgage by ordinary action in court.


D E C I S I O N


BOCOBO, J.:


The plaintiff-appellant, Anak-Pawis Santa Rosa, a corporation, brings an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage executed by the deceased Vicente de Guzman in favor of plaintiff-appellant as a security for two promissory notes, one for P850 and the other for P300. The defendants are legal heirs of the mortgage debtor.

On July 25, 1927, Vicente de Guzman executed a deed of mortgage (Exhibit A) upon lot No. 677 of the Subdivision of the Hacienda de Santa Rosa to secure the payment of two promissory notes as above indicated. After the debtor’s death on June 25, 1928, the creditor instituted special proceedings No. 3029 (Intestate Estate of Vicente de Guzman). The corresponding administrator and committee on claims and appraisals were appointed by the court. The Anak-Pawis Santa Rosa presented its claim before said committee based on the two promissory notes. The committee on July 14, 1938, submitted its report stating that this claim had been disallowed. On appeal to the Court of First Instance from this action of the committee, the court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the claimant had failed to file a complaint reproducing its claim in accordance with section 776 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 4229. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the court on December 14, 1938. The project of partition in the intestate proceedings was approved by the court on February 15, 1939, the court ordering that said proceedings be closed and the record filed.

The trial court held that the plaintiff by presenting its claim before the committee on claims had forfeited its right to bring the present action for the foreclosure of the mortgage, inasmuch as under Rule 87, section 7, of the Rules of Court, a creditor may either file his claim before the committee on claims or foreclose the mortgage in an ordinary action in court, but he can not avail himself of both remedies.

The decision of the trial court was in accordance with law. Said Rule 87, section 7 of the Rules of Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 7. Mortgage debt due from estate. — A creditor holding a claim against the deceased secured by mortgage or other collateral security, may abandon the security and prosecute his claim in the manner provided in this rule, and share in the general distribution of the assets of the estate; or he may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security, by ordinary action in Court making the executor or administrator a party defendant, and if there is a judgment for a deficiency, after the sale of the mortgaged premises, or the property pledged, in the foreclosure or other proceedings to realize upon the security, he may claim his deficiency judgment in the manner provided in the preceding section; or he may rely upon his mortgage or other security alone. and foreclose the same at any time within the period of the statute of limitations, and in that event he shall not be admitted as a creditor, and shall receive no share in the distribution of the other assets of the estate: but nothing herein contained shall prohibit the executor or administrator from redeeming the property mortgaged or pledged, by paying the debt for which it is held as security, under the direction of the Court, if the Court shall adjudge it to be for the best interest of the estate that such redemption shall be made."cralaw virtua1aw library

Plaintiff-appellant, however, contends that its petition before the committee on claims was for the foreclosure of the mortgage, and it therefore did not abandon the security. Said petition asked for: (1) the admission of the claim; and (2) the sale of the property and the application of the proceeds to said claim. However, inasmuch as the committee on claims had no power to order the foreclosure of the mortgage — such an order being proper only in an ordinary action in court for the foreclosure of the mortgage — the prayer for the sale of the lot was not in order and should be disregarded. By going before the committee on claims, this creditor irrevocably signified its desire to share in the general distribution of the assets of the estate, instead of foreclosing its mortgage by ordinary action in court.

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant. So ordered.

Yulo, C.J., Moran, and Ozaeta, JJ., concur.

Paras, J., I concur in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman