3. IN RE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF PASCUAL VILLANUEVA. MAURICIA G.

DE
VILLANUEVA vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (ACB DIGEST)
FACTS: The widow Mauricia Villanueva petitioned the CFI of Agusan for letters of
administration for the administration of her deceased husband, Pascual Vilanueva. On the
hearing, it was agreed to the place estate under administration, but not under the widow but to
a certain Atty. Teodulo R. Ricaforte. After taking oath, he entered upon the performance of his
duties.
On November 9, 1950 the Clerk of the Agusan CFI, issued the following Notice to Creditors to
all persons having claims for money against the decedent requiring them to file their claims
with the clerk of court within six but not beyond twelve months after date of the first
publication of this notice.
The above notice contained the usual order for publication thereof (once a week for three
consecutive weeks) which was effected, thru the Morning Times of City, a newspaper of general
circulation, on Nov. 16, 23 and 30, 1950, which expired on November 16, 1951.
On July 20, 1953, the defendant-appellant Philippine National Bank filed in the administration
proceedings, Creditor's Claim for the total amount of P1,347.45 due as of June 5, 1953 which
was due and demandable since Dec. 20, 1940. On October 12, 1954, the Philippine National
Bank filed a Motion for Admission of claim, praying that an order be issued admitting and
approving the claim and ordering the administrator to pay the Bank the amount of the claim.
The administrator, on November 5, 1954, opposed the alleging that he had no knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therein. He also argued
that the same indebtedness has already been paid, that the caused action for the recovery of
the aforesaid amount of P1,847.45 is barred by the statute of limitations, for more than ten
(10) Years have elapsed since the cause of action accrued up to present time;That the said
claim is barred forever on the ground that notice to creditors having been published in the
MORNING TIMES of Cebu City, a newspaper of general circulation in on November 16, 23 and
30, 1950
The appellant PNB, more than four (4) Years after the opposition of the claim presented by the
administrator, filed a Petition for an Extension alleging, among others, that Sec. 2, Rule 87 of
the Rules, allows the filing of claims even if the period stated in the notice to creditors elapsed,
upon cause shown and on such terms as equitable; that its failure to present the claiming with
the period stated in the notice, was its lack of knowledge of administration proceeding. The CFI
ruled against PNB and denied its subsequent reconsideration. The said order was appealed to
the CA which certified it saying that the issue if purely of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not PNB is barred to claim the amount of P1, 347.45

HELD: The period fixed in the notice lapsed on November 16, 1951 and the claim was filed on
July 20, 1953 or about 1 year and 8 months late. This notwithstanding, appellant contends
that it did not know of such administration proceedings, not even its employees in the Branch
Office in Butuan City, Agusan. It is to be noted that the petition for Letters of Administration
and the Notice to Creditors were duly published in the Manila Daily Bulletin and in the
Morning Times, respectively, which was a full compliance with the requirements of the Rules. It
is quite true that the Courts can extend the period within which to present claims against the
estate, even after the period limited has elapsed; but such extension should be granted under
special circumstances. The lower did not find any justifiable reason to give the extension and
for one thing, there was no period to extend, the same had elapsed.
4. BUENAVENTURA BELAMALA vs. MARCELINO POLINAR (ACB DIGEST)
FACTS: On May 24, 1954, the complaint for Frustrated Murder was filed against said Mauricio
Polinar. On May 28, 1966, the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BOHOL rendered a decision
thereof, convicting the said Mauricio Polinar of the crime of serious physical injuries and
sentenced him to pay to the offended party Buenaventura Belamala, now claimant herein, the
amount of P990.00, plus the amount of P35.80 as indemnity the amount of P1,000.00 as
moral damages. On June 18, 1956, the accused (the late Mauricio Polinar) appealed to the
Court of Appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bohol; while the appeal of
said Mauricio Polinar was pending before the Court of Appeals, he died; and that there was no
Notice or Notification of his death has ever been filed in the said Court of Appeals, That the
decision of the Court of Appeals in said Criminal Case No. 1922, has affirmed the decision of
the Court of First Instance of Bohol, in toto, and said decision of the Court of Appeals was
promulgated on March 27, 1958; but said Mauricio Polinar has already died on July 27, 1956.
The administrator Marcelino Polinar is one of the legitimate children

oppose the claim of

Belamala contending that the death of the accused prior to final judgment extinguished all
criminal and civil liabilities resulting from the offense, in view of Article 89, paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal Code. CFI Bohol allowed the money claim of appellee Belamala against the estate
of the deceased Mauricio Polinar, for damages caused to the claimant. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: whether or not the civil liability of an accused of physical injuries who dies before final
judgment, is extinguished by his demise, to the extent of barring any claim therefor against his
estate.
HELD: We see no merit in the plea that the civil liability has been extinguished, in view of the
provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines of 1950 (Rep. Act No. 386) that became operative
eighteen years after the Revised Penal Code. As pointed out by the Court below, Article 33 of
the Civil Code establishes a civil action for damages on account of physical injuries,
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action.

Assuming that for lack of express reservation, Belamala's civil action for damages was to be
considered instituted together with the criminal action, still, since both proceedings were
terminated without final adjudication, the civil action of the offended party under Article 33
may yet be enforced separately. Such claim in no way contradicts Article 108, of the Penal
Code, that imposes the obligation to indemnify upon the deceased offender's heirs, because the
latter acquired their decedents obligations only to the extent of the value of the inheritance
The appellant, however, is correct in the contention that the claim should have been prosecuted
by separate action against the administrator, as permitted by sections 1 and 2 of Revised Rule
87, since the claim is patently one "to recover damages for an injury to person or property"
(Rule 87, sec. 1).Belamala's action cannot be enforced by filing a claim against the estate under
Rule 86, because section 5 of that rule explicitly limits the claims to those for funeral expenses,
expenses for last sickness, judgments for money and "claims against the decedent, arising
from contract, express or implied;" and this last category (the other three being inapposite)
includes only "all purely personal obligations other than those which have their source
in delict or tort" and Belamala's damages manifestly have a tortious origin.
Furthermore, it does not appear that the award of the trial Court was based on evidence
submitted to it.The decision under appeal is hereby reversed and set aside, but without
prejudice to the action of appellee Belamala against the Administrator of the Estate of Mauricio
Polinar.