Scribd
Upload
618 views2 pages

Estate of Olave v. Reyes

1) The case involves an amicable settlement submitted by parties in Civil Case 4623 to settle the alleged debt of an estate, which was approved by the respondent court without prior approval of the probate court overseeing the estate. 2) Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court requires that claims against an estate be filed in the probate court overseeing administration of the estate. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the prior approval of the probate court was needed for the amicable settlement, in order to protect the estate and allow the administrator to properly assess claims against the estate.

Uploaded by

Fritz Frances Danielle
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
618 views2 pages

Estate of Olave v. Reyes

1) The case involves an amicable settlement submitted by parties in Civil Case 4623 to settle the alleged debt of an estate, which was approved by the respondent court without prior approval of the probate court overseeing the estate. 2) Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court requires that claims against an estate be filed in the probate court overseeing administration of the estate. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the prior approval of the probate court was needed for the amicable settlement, in order to protect the estate and allow the administrator to properly assess claims against the estate.

Uploaded by

Fritz Frances Danielle
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PAYMENT OF THE DEBTS OF THE ESTATE alleged indebtedness of P19,952.

11 and for
attorney's fees of P4,988.02
G.R. No. L-29407 July 29, 1983
 The parties (plaintiff and defendants) in Civil Case
ESTATE OF AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE, as represented No. 4623 of the Court of First Instance of Davao,
by JOSE S. MATUTE, petitioner, submitted to the respondent court an Amicable
Settlement whereby the property of the estate
vs.
covered by OCT No. 0-27 of Davao was conveyed
HONORABLE MANASES G. REYES, Presiding Judge of and ceded to SAMCO as payment of its claim.
Branch III, Court of First Instance of Davao, SAMCO  That the said Amicable Settlement signed by the
herein respondents was not submitted to and
DOCTRINE
approved by the then Court of First Instance of
 The primary object of the provisions requiring Manila nor notice thereof made to the beneficiaries
presentation [of claim in a probate court] is to and heirs in said special proceedings;
apprise the administrator and the probate court of  Respondent court despite the lack of prior approval
the existence of the claim so that a proper and of the probate court, approved the said amicable
timely arrangement may be made for its payment in settlement
full or by pro-rata portion in the due course of the
Respondent’s contention
administration
 The Amicable Settlement need not be approved by
FACTS
the probate court, "the same having been entered
 The subject in this case is the amicable settlement into in another independent action and in another
submitted by the parties in Civil Case 4623 which court of co-equal rank
was approved by herein respondent.
ISSUE
 It is alleged that the estate of Amadeo Matute Olave
is the owner of a parcel of land, situated in sitio Whether the prior approval of the probate court is
Tibambam, municip ality of Sigaboy needed in case of an amicable settlement for the
 In April 1965 herein private respondent (SAMCO) payment of debt of the estate
Filed the aforesaid civil case against Carlos V. HELD- YES
Matute and Matias S. Matute, as defendants, in
their capacities as co-administrators of the estate of  Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, provides
Amadeo Matute Olave, for the collection of an that "no action upon a claim for the recovery of
money or debt or interest thereon shall be
commenced against the executor or
administrator…”
 The claim of private respondent SAMCO being one
arising from a contract may be pursued only by
filing the same in the administration proceedings in
the Court of First Instance of Manila (probate
court)
 The purpose of presentation of claims against
decedents of the estate in the probate court is to
protect the estate of deceased persons.
 That way, the executor or administrator will be able
to examine each claim and determine whether it is
a proper one which should be allowed.
 Further, the primary object of the provisions
requiring presentation is to apprise the
administrator and the probate court of the
existence of the claim so that a proper and timely
arrangement may be made for its payment in full or
by pro-rata portion in the due course of the
administration, inasmuch as upon the death of a
person, his entire estate is burdened with the
payment of all of his debts and no creditor shall
enjoy any preference or priority; all of them shag
share pro-rata in the liquidation of the estate of the
deceased.

You might also like