011 Laserna v.

Altavas (CELAJE)
needless process of presenting his evidence which he had already done."
G.R. No. L-45793 | October 9, 1939 | Laurel, J. | A claim only needs to be
DOCTRINE: A claim by a creditor against the estate/deceased which was
adjudicated once
already approved and adjudicated in another case need not be adjudicated again
PETITIONER: Testate estate of the deceased Jose Laserna Paro y Tupaz.  if it is filed in the testamentary proceedings of the deceased.
ARISTONA LASERNA, heir-appellant,  FACTS:
RESPONDENTS: JOSE ALTAVAS, creditor-appellee. 1. In another case (first case/attorney's fees case), civil case No. 2961, CFI of
Capiz, herein respondent-appellee Jose Altavas, instituted an action against
SUMMARY: There were 2 cases involved here. The first one (attorney's fees Jose Laserna Paro y Tupaz to recover the sum of P4,500 as attorney's fees.
case), civil case No. 2961/G.R. No. 40038, was a collection case initiated by The CFI of Capiz rendered judgment in favor of herein respondent Jose
herein respondent Jose Altavas against herein petitioner Jose Laserna Paro to Altavas.
recover the sum of P4,500 attorney's fees. Both the lower and the SC ruled that
Jose Laserna Paro was liable to Jose Altavas. However, during the pendency of 2. From this judgment the herein petitioner Jose Laserna Paro y Tupaz
the appeal to the SC of the attorney's fees case, Jose Laserna Paro died. Thus, appealed to the SC in G.R. No. 40038 (still the attorney's fees case). During
Jose Laserna Paro's will was probated in the second case, civil case No. 3109 the pendency of the appeal but after the filing by herein petitioner Jose
(probate case), in which case, herein petitioner Aristona Laserna was named as Laserna Paro y Tupaz of the corresponding brief, Jose Laserna Paro y
the executrix and administratrix of the estate of Jose Laserna Paro. Tupaz died, leaving a will.
Administratrix Aristona was also substituted in the attorney's fees case. After
3. This will was probated in civil case No. 3109 (second case/probate case)
the SC ruled in favor of respondent Jose Altavas in the first case (attorney's fees
case), the case was remanded to the lower courts for execution. An order of 4. The Supreme Court was notified by Jose Laserna Paro's attorney in G.R.
execution and sale was already issued against the properties of Jose Laserna No. 40038 (attorney's fees case) of the death of Jose Laserna Paro. Upon
Paro in the first case, but for some unexplainable reason, Jose Altavas moved motion of said attorney, the deceased Jose Laserna Paro was substituted
for the suspension of the sale in the (first case/attorney's fee) case. by herein petitioner-administratrix Aristona Laserna in the first case
(attorney's fees case) because Aristona Laserna was already appointed
However, later on, this time in the second and herein case (probate case),
by the court as executrix and administratrix of the estate of the late Jose
respondent Jose Altavas filed a motion praying that administratrix Aristona
Laserna Paro y Tupaz in the testamentary proceedings No. 3109 of the CFI
should pay the P4,500 attorney's fees adjudicated to Jose Altavas in the first
of Capiz (second case/probate case).
(attorney's fees case) and if petitioner Aristona fails to do so, the property under
administration should be sold. The lower court, in the second case (probate 5. On March 20, 1934 the Supreme Court (in the attorney's fees case) rendered
case), granted the motion for execution. Herein petitioner Aristona Laserna now its decision affirming the judgment of the lower court in the attorney's fees
claims that the claim of Jose Altavas in the second case is now barred because case.
of the latter's failure to present it before the committee on claims and appraisal
6. Upon the return of the record to the lower court for execution (still in the
in the second case. Issue: W/N the claim of Jose Altavas is barred because of
attorney's fees case), it appears that herein respondent Jose Altavas filed a
the latter's failure to present it before the committee on claims and appraisal.
motion praying that the administratrix herein petitioner Aristona Laserna be
No.
ordered to pay the P4,500 attorney's fees adjudicated to him, by the lower
The claim of respondent Jose Altavas (in the probate case), need not have to be court and confirmed by the Supreme Court.
presented before the committee on claims and appraisal principally because that
7. The lower court (in the attorney's fees case), on July 8, 1934, granted the
claim has already been adjudicated by final pronouncement by this Court in
motion and issued an order giving Aristona Laserna, administratrix of the
G.R. No. 40038 (attorney's case). To countenance petitioner Aristona's theory
estate of the late Jose Laserna y Tupaz, thirty days within which to effect
would be to convert a claim duly passed upon and determined not only by the
payment of the sum of P4,500 and the costs amounting to P127.38.
CFI but by the SC into a contested claim, once again, in the language of the trial
court, "giving the committee on claims more power than the courts of justice" 8. As Aristona failed to effectuate the payment ordered within the time fixed,
and "obliging a creditor whose claim had already been passed upon by the Court an order of execution was issued against the property of Jose Laserna Paro y
to submit himself to the committee on claims and to pass over again through the Tupaz, and the sheriff in compliance therewith, sold the properties under
 administration which appear to have been previously attached by the
claimant Altavas upon the original institution of the (attorney's fees) action
brought by the latter for the recovery of the attorney's fees hereinabove
mentioned.
9. Subsequently, however, and for reasons that do not clearly appear from the
record, respondent Altavas himself moved for the suspension of the sale by
the sheriff and, without any opposition on the part of the administratrix
Aristona, the sale was set aside (in the attorney's fees case).
10. Such was the status of the case with reference to the adjudicated claim of
Jose Altavas when, subsequently, he filed in the second case (probate case)
a motion praying that the administratrix be ordered to pay the sum of
P4,500, and, in case of failure, that the said administratrix be ordered to sell
the property under administration and to apply the proceeds thereof to the
payment of the sum adjudged in his favor.
11. It is in pursuance of this motion that the lower court (in the probate case),
on December 31, 1935, issued the following order which is the subject of
appeal in this petition:
a. In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby orders the administratrix Aristona
Laserna to pay Jose Altavas within ten (10) days after receipt of this order, the sum
of P4,500, adjudged to him by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court dated
March 20, 1934, in civil case No. 2961 (attorney's fees case), plus costs amounting
to P127.38.
b. The administratrix is further ordered that, in case she does not have sufficient funds,
she submit within ten days to this Court, a petition to sell at public auction, all the
property belonging to the deceased or such part of the same as may be sufficient to
cover the sums due Jose Altavas.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the claim of Jose Altavas is barred because of the latter's failure to
present it before the committee on claims and appraisal in the second case.
No, because to do so would be to convert a claim duly passed upon and
already determined by SC (in the first case) into a contested claim again.
RULING: Our conclusion is that the order appealed from must be, as the same is
hereby, affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
RATIO:
1. We are of the opinion and so hold that, upon the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the claim of Jose Altavas (in the second case/probate
case), although it did not survive the deceased, need not have to be
presented before the committee on claims and appraisal (in the second
case/probate case) principally because that claim is already an
adjudicated claim by final pronouncement by this Court in G.R. No.
40038 (attorney's case).
2. To countenance petitioner Aristona's theory would be to convert a claim
duly passed upon and determined not only by the CFI but by this Court into
a contested claim, once again, in the language of the trial court, "giving the
committee on claims more power than the courts of justice" and "obliging a
creditor whose claim had already been passed upon by the Court to submit
himself to the committee on claims and to pass over again through the
needless process of presenting his evidence which he had already done."
3. It does not appear that the claim of Jose Altavas has been satisfied. Neither
is it possible that the decision in favor of Altavas has lapsed by the
expiration of the five-year period.
4. On the contrary, the situation is obviously the contrary. It also appears that
the substitution of the deceased Jose Laserna Paro in civil case No. 2961,
for the recovery of attorney's fees, was effected at the instance of herein
petitioner-appellant, Aristona Laserna.
5. She Aristona had an opportunity to contest that claim, and when her
contention was overruled she did not impugn the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court.
6. Neither does it appear that during the pendency of the appeal in the
Supreme Court (of the attorney's fees case) Aristona moved for the
statement or suspension of the proceedings because of the provisions of
sections 119, 700 and 703 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Under the circumstances it is unjust to defeat the claim of the Jose Altavas
and to hold that it has been barred by the statute of nonclaim.