Tamparong v. Nery
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Casimiro Tamparong filed a claim against the intestate estate of the deceased Filomeno Nery Velez for two alleged loans totaling P6,045. The first loan was for P4,000, purportedly secured by a mortgage (Exhibit A), and the second was for P2,225, based on a promissory note for P2,045 plus minor amounts (Exhibit B). Procedural History: The intestate proceedings were commenced on March 26, 1932, with Roque V. Nery appointed as administrator. A committee on claims and appraisal approved Tamparong's claims on November 12, 1932, and March 11, 1933. The administrator appealed these approvals on March 22, 1933. Instead of renewing his claim in the intestate proceedings, Tamparong filed a separate civil case (No. 4231) on May 23, 1933, to recover the P4,000 mortgage credit. This was after an earlier action (No. 200) for the same credit was decided adversely to him in early 1933 for being premature. On June 30, 1933, Tamparong moved to abandon his P4,000 claim in the intestate proceedings to focus on the P2,225 claim, stating he was prosecuting the P4,000 credit in a separate case. Subsequently, Tamparong filed an amended claim on July 7, 1936, in the intestate proceedings, demanding payment for both the P4,000 mortgage credit and the P2,225 credit. The lower court rejected this claim on July 7, 1936, on the ground that it was filed too late, and denied reconsideration on October 27, 1936. The Petition: Casimiro Tamparong appealed the orders of the lower court dated July 7 and October 27, 1936, which rejected his claim against the estate of Filomeno Nery Velez.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the claim of appellant Casimiro Tamparong for the payment of P6,045 from the administrator of the estate of Filomeno Nery Velez. Whether the claim was filed within the period prescribed by law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the lower court dated July 7 and October 27, 1936, in all respects, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of filing successive claims and the election of remedies: The Court held that a creditor with a claim against a deceased person's estate must choose between filing the claim in the intestate or testamentary proceedings or enforcing it through an ordinary action in a separate case, as provided by Section 708 of Act No. 190. The appellant's actions of filing multiple claims and separate cases for the same credits, especially after adverse decisions in prior actions (Cases Nos. 200 and 4231), were deemed impermissible. The law does not countenance the practice of commencing one case after another for the purpose of collecting the same credits, and if a creditor loses in one action, they effectively lose in both. On the timeliness of filing the claim: The Court found that even if the procedural issue of successive claims were disregarded, the appellant's claim was still filed out of time. After the administrator appealed the committee's approval of the claims on January 30, 1936, and Tamparong had notice on February 1, 1936, Act No. 4229, amending Section 776 of Act No. 190, was in effect. This amendment granted only thirty days to reproduce the claim. However, Tamparong did not take any step until July 7, 1936, which was five months and six days after the administrator's appeal, far exceeding the statutory thirty-day period. Therefore, the claim was also barred by prescription.
Main Doctrine
A creditor who has a claim against a deceased person's estate must elect to pursue either the filing of a claim in the intestate or testamentary proceedings or enforce the same by an ordinary action in a separate case. Once an action is commenced and decided, whether favorably or unfavorably, the creditor cannot commence another action for the same purpose, as such procedure is not countenanced by law and may be barred by res judicata or prescription.