MENDOZA, JURIS RENIER C.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
LLB-3 THURSDAY 7:30-9:30PM

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REYES VS. ROSENSTOCK AND BPI VS. CONCEPCION

TITLE: REYES vs. ROSENSTOCK

CITATION: 47 Phil. 784

FACTS: Plaintiff Vicente Reyes obtained a judgment against Henry Elser who was still living, for a
sum of P64,242.69 and for the foreclosure of a certain real estate mortgage on a property located in
Manila and its sale thereof to satisfy the judgment. Three months later, Elser died and Rosenstock was
appointed as the executor of the former’s estate. A few days prior to the death of Elser, a sale of the
mortgaged property was confirmed and no appeal was taken from the confirmation. Commissioners
were then appointed by the court to act as the committee of claims and before them, Reyes filed his
proof of claim, to which the defendant objected. The plaintiff’s claim was allowed by the said
committee in full as the claim against the estate. The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration
which was denied by the trial court. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the claim against the estate of Elser falls squarely within the definition of a
contingent claim?

RULING: No. Jurisprudence provides that a 'contingent claim,' is a claim against a decedent, not
absolute or certain, but depending upon some event after the death of
the testator or intestate which may or may not happen. A subsisting demand against the estate of a
deceased person which had matured and was capable of being enforced during the lifetime of the
deceased is not a contingent claim. A creditor holding a claim against the deceased person secured by
mortgage or other collateral security may rely upon his security and institute an ordinary action based
thereon without abandoning his right to present his claim to the committee should the security not be
sufficient to pay the debt. In this case, The defendant has filed an able and exhaustive brief, but has
overlooked the fundamental fact that the original judgment in this case was personally rendered against
the deceased while he was still living.

TITLE: BPI vs CONCEPCION

CITATION: 53 Phil. 84

FACTS: Defendants Concepcion executed a promissory note in favor of BPI and as a security, they
deposited 700 shares of PNB as collateral and also a mortgaged lot. The defendants defaulted in their
payment, forcing the bank to initiate a foreclosure sale. Shortly thereafter, Henry Elser entered into
negotiations with the Concepcions and offered to take over the mortgaged property and assume
mortgage debt. To this, the Concepcions agreed that they would be relief from liability. Elser sent a
series of letters to the bank the latter didn’t make any response. Later on, Elser entered into an
agreement with the Concepcions in a form of bilateral sale of the land.

Elser died on June 18, 1923, and on January 4, 1924, the plaintiff suggested the death of the defendant
Elser, and asked that the administrator of the estate, C. W. Rosenstock, be substituted in his place as
defendant, and that the action be continued against Rosenstock in that capacity, on the ground that this
action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage. There were opposition to the appointment of Rosenstock
however the trial court rendered a decision appointing the latter as the administrator of Elser’s Estate.
However, Rosenstock contended that Elser could not have assumed the obligations of the Concepcions
because at the time he made such assumption, he was of unsound mind.

ISSUE: Whether or not the claim on the mortgaged party is to be considered as a contingent claim
against the estate of Elser?

RULiNG: Yes. In the foreclosure of a mortgage on property pertaining to the estate of a deceased
person, the amount of the deficiency cannot be determined before the foreclosure sale is made, and the
demand for its payment is a contingent claim within the meaning of sections 746-749 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. The-claim for the deficiency must be presented to the committee on claims and
appraisals within the period fixed by sections 689 and 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the court,
from the report of the committee or from the proofs exhibited to it, is satisfied that the contingent claim
is valid, the executor or administrator may be required to retain in his possession sufficient assets to
pay the claim when it becomes absolute.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:
In the case of Reyes vs. Rosenstock, the claim was not considered as a contingent claim since there was
already a claim arising from the judgment against Elser prior to his death and which was enforced
already during his lifetime. On the other hand, in the case of BPI vs. Concepcion, the amount of the
deficiency was still to be determined before the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property can be
made. The demand for its payment would now become as a contingent claim which can be made
against the estate of Elser.