February 1965 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > February 1965 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-18935 February 26, 1965 - SALVADOR D. LACUNA v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-18935. February 26, 1965.]
SALVADOR D. LACUNA, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, PEDRO Q. MOLINA, as Commanding General of the Philippine Air Force and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS; WHEN MONEY CLAIMS MAY BE FILED; EXTENSION OF PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN NOTICE. — The period prescribed in the notice to creditors is not exclusive; money claims against the estate may be allowed any time before an order of distribution is entered, at the discretion of the courts for cause and upon such terms as are equitable. This extension of the period shall not exceed one month from the issuance of the order authorizing such extension.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN EXTENSION OF PERIOD JUSTIFIED. — When Claimant could not have filed a money claim against the estate of a deceased person before the promulgation of the decision of the Court of Appeals because although the lower court in that case upheld her right to the ownership and possession of the building subject thereof, no damages were adjudged in claimant’s favor until after the decision of the said appellate court, it is held that the action taken by the lower court, before an order of distribution has been made, in granting an extension of the period within which to file her claim, cannot be considered an abuse of discretion.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN EXTENSION OF PERIOD JUSTIFIED. — When Claimant could not have filed a money claim against the estate of a deceased person before the promulgation of the decision of the Court of Appeals because although the lower court in that case upheld her right to the ownership and possession of the building subject thereof, no damages were adjudged in claimant’s favor until after the decision of the said appellate court, it is held that the action taken by the lower court, before an order of distribution has been made, in granting an extension of the period within which to file her claim, cannot be considered an abuse of discretion.
R E S O L U T I O N
REGALA, J.:
This Court, deliberating on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner Salvador D. Lacuna and on the Verified Urgent Manifestation of Cirilo Damian waiving his right to intervene as an indispensable party to this suit, resolves:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
First, to deny the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner, Salvador D. Lacuna, for having been filed out of time; and
Second, to reiterate the Resolution of this Court promulgated on November 28, 1964, ordering the remand of the records of this case to the court of origin for the purpose of allowing the assignor’s intervention as an indispensable party.
The proceedings on the remand should be limited to the presentation by the intervenor-appellant, Cirilo S. Damian, of his evidence, and to the corresponding rebuttal evidence of the same by the other parties. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
First, to deny the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner, Salvador D. Lacuna, for having been filed out of time; and
Second, to reiterate the Resolution of this Court promulgated on November 28, 1964, ordering the remand of the records of this case to the court of origin for the purpose of allowing the assignor’s intervention as an indispensable party.
The proceedings on the remand should be limited to the presentation by the intervenor-appellant, Cirilo S. Damian, of his evidence, and to the corresponding rebuttal evidence of the same by the other parties. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
