CHAPTER VII

CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE AND ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS

RULE 86

CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE

SEC. 1. Notice to creditors to be issued by court. —

Immediately after granting

letters testamentary or of administration,

the court shall issue a notice

requiring all persons having money claims

against the decedent

to file them in the office of the clerk of said court.

Sec. 1: Notice to Creditors

Immediately after granting letters testamentary or of administration, the court shall issue a notice:

Requiring all persons having money claims against the estate; and
To file them in the office of the clerk of court.

A claim against a decedent's estate need not be in any particular form; it is sufficient if:

it states the character and amount of the claim,
enables the representative to provide for its payment, and
serves to bar all other claims by reason of its particularity of designation.

Purpose of presenting claims against the estate

The purpose of presenting claims against a decedent's estate in the probate court is to protect the estate of deceased persons.
This ensures that the executor or administrator will be able to examine each claim and determine whether it is a proper one to be allowed.
Further, the primary objective 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, either in full or on a pro rata basis.
Upon the death of a person, his entire estate is burdened with the payment of all his debts, and no creditor shall enjoy any preference or priority; all creditors shall share pro rata in the liquidation of the estate of the deceased.

Type of claims that may be filed

Only money claims against the decedent are allowed under Rule 86, but not all money claims may be prosecuted under this rule.
Only those contracted before the decedent's death may be brought under Rule 86.
Furthermore, the word "claim" includes every species of liability which an executor or an administrator of an estate can be called upon to pay or provide for payment out of the general fund of the estate.

It only refers to such debts or demands against the decedent as might have been enforced against him in his lifetime by personal actions for the recovery of money, and upon which only a money judgment could have been rendered.

Claims originating after the decedent's death may be allowed as expenses of administration but not as money claims under Rule 86.

Such expenses may be collected from the administrator or executor personally or by motion in the testate or intestate proceedings without the formality and limitations for money claims against the decedent.

Also, claims for taxes, whether assessed before or after the death of the deceased, can be collected from the heirs even after the distribution of the properties of the decedent.

They are exempted from the application of the statute of non-claims.
The heirs shall be liable therefor, in proportion to their share in the inheritance.

With respect to a creditor of the conjugal partnership, the remedy would be to file a claim against the estate of the decedent.

After the death of either of the spouses, no complaint for the collection of indebtedness chargeable against the conjugal partnership can be brought against the surviving spouse. Instead, the claim must be made in the proceedings for the liquidation and settlement of the conjugal property.
Upon the death of one spouse, the powers of administration of the surviving spouse cease and are passed to the administrator appointed by the court having jurisdiction over the settlement of estate proceedings. Indeed, the surviving spouse is not even a de facto administrator, and any conveyance made by him of property belonging to the partnership prior to the liquidation of the mass of conjugal partnership property is void.

Availing of a writ of execution is an improper remedy for the payment of debts and expenses of administration.

The ordinary procedure to settle claims of indebtedness against the estate of a deceased person is for the claimant to present a claim before the probate court so that the court may order the administrator to pay the amount thereof.
In testate or intestate proceedings to settle the estate of a deceased person, the properties belonging to the estate are under the jurisdiction of the court, and such jurisdiction continues until said properties have been distributed among the heirs entitled thereto.
During the pendency of the proceedings, all the estate is in custodia legis, and the proper procedure is to ask the court for an order to require the administrator to pay the amount due from the estate.

SEC. 2. Time within which claims shall be filed. —

In the notice provided in the preceding section,

the court shall state the time for the filing of claims against the estate,

which shall not be more than twelve (12)

nor less than six (6) months

after the date of the first publication of the notice.

However, at any time before an order of distribution is entered,

on application of a creditor who has failed to file his claim

within the previously limited period,

the court may, for cause shown and on such terms

as are equitable, allow such claim to be filed

within a time not exceeding one (1) month.

Sec. 2: Period for Filing Claims

Claims must be filed within 6 to 12 months from the first publication of the notice.
Late claims may be allowed within 1 month before distribution, for valid reasons.

Time for filing claims; exceptions

The time within which claims may be filed against the estate is as follows:

Not more than 12 months, nor
Less than six months,
reckoned from the date of the first publication of the notice.

The range of the period specified in the rule is intended to give the probate court the discretion to fix the period for the filing of claims. The probate court may set the period provided it is not less than six months nor more than 12 months from the date of the first publication of the notice. Such period, once fixed by the court, is mandatory. The purpose of fixing a period within which claims must be presented is to ensure a speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased person and the early delivery of the property to those entitled to it.
It is clear from the foregoing that the period prescribed in the notice to creditors is not exclusive. Money claims against the estate may be allowed any time before an order of distribution is entered, at the discretion of the court, for cause, and upon such terms as are equitable. The probate court may, for good cause shown, allow such a claim to be filed within a period not exceeding one month. However, this one-month extension does not commence from the expiration of the original period for filing claims; it begins from the date of the court order allowing said filing.

Statute of non-claims

The statute of non-claims is the period fixed for the filing of claims against the estate, barring claims not filed within the said period forever.
The guidelines as to the statute of non-claims are as follows:

The period fixed by the probate court must not be less than six months nor more than 12 months from the date of first publication of the notice.
Such period, once fixed by the court, is mandatory and cannot be shortened.
The statute of non-claims supersedes the statute of limitations.

Even if a claim has not yet prescribed under the statute of limitations, if such claim is not made with the probate court within the time set forth in the notice, the creditor may no longer collect because of the statute of non-claims. In other words, the statute of non-claims effectively shortens the statute of limitations as regards the right of action to pursue the debtor.

Still, before a creditor may go against the estate, the claim must both be within the statute of limitations and the statute of non-claims.
In short, the statute of limitations and non-claims must both concur before a creditor may collect against the estate.

There are two exceptions to the statute of non-claims:

The creditor may apply with the court for a new period not exceeding one month from the order allowing the same for just cause, in accordance with Rule 86, Section 2.
The creditor may set up his claim as a counterclaim in an action filed by the executor or administrator against him, in accordance with Rule 86, Section 5.

Danan vs. Buencamino, G.R No. L-57205, December 14, 1981:

The Supreme Court ruled that a claim filed two days after the period fixed by the order of the probate court could still prosper. In deciding in favor of the creditor, the Court declared that the administratrix was estopped and that laches had already set in, considering that the issue of the timeliness of the claim was made after seven years.

Ignacio vs. Pampanga Bus Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-18936, May 23, 1967:

Moreover, though presentment of probate claims is imperative, it is generally understood that it may be waived by the estate's representative. Waiver is to be determined from the administrator's "acts and conduct."
Certainly, the administrator's failure to plead the statute of non-claims, his active participation, and resistance to the plaintiff's claim in the civil suit amount to such waiver.

SEC. 3. Publication of Notice to Creditors —

Every executor or administrator shall,

immediately after the notice to creditors is issued,

cause the same to be published for three (3) consecutive weeks

in a newspaper of general circulation in the province

and to be posted for the same period

in four public places in the province

and in two public places in the municipality

where the decedent last resided.

Sec. 3: Publication of Notice.

Immediately after the notice to creditors is issued, the executor or administrator shall cause the following:

Publication of the notice for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province; and
Posting of the notice for three consecutive weeks in the following places:
a) Four public places in the province; and
b) Two public places in the municipality where the decedent last resided.

Publication amounts to constructive notice and is binding against the whole world.
Consequently, a creditor cannot be permitted to file a claim beyond the period fixed in the notice on the ground that they had no knowledge of the administration proceedings.

SEC. 4. Filing of Copy of Printed Notice —

Within ten (10) days after the notice

has been published and posted

in accordance with the preceding section,

the executor or administrator shall

file or cause to be filed in court

a printed copy of the notice,

accompanied by an affidavit setting forth

the dates of the first and last publication thereof

and the name of the newspaper in which it was printed.

Sec. 4: Filing Proof of Publication

A copy of the printed notice must be filed with the court within ten (10) days after publication and posting.
Aside from the actual printed copy, the affidavit of the published notice must also be submitted, setting forth:

the dates of the first and last publication, as well as
the newspaper in which it was printed.

The rationale behind this provision is to inform both the creditors and the courts that the notice requirement has been duly followed.

SEC. 5. Claims Which Must Be Filed Under the Notice – If Not Filed, Barred; Exceptions —

All claims for money against the decedent,

arising from contract, express or implied,

whether due, not due, or contingent;

all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent;

and all judgments for money against the decedent

must be filed within the time limit stated in the notice.

Otherwise, they are barred forever,

except that they may be set forth as counterclaims

in any action that the executor or administrator

may bring against the claimants.

Where an executor or administrator

commences an action or prosecutes an action

already commenced by the deceased during their lifetime,

the debtor may set forth by answer the claims

they have against the decedent

instead of presenting them independently

to the court as provided herein.

Mutual claims may be set off against each other in such action,

and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant,

the amount so determined shall be considered

the true balance against the estate,

as though the claim had been presented

directly before the court in the administration proceedings.

Claims not yet due or contingent

may be approved at their present value.

Sec. 5: Claims which must be filed under the notice

Claims that must be filed:

Money claims against the decedent arising from contract (express or implied)

Whether due, not yet due, or contingent

Funeral expenses and last sickness expenses
Judgments for money against the decedent

Failure to file within the time limit = claim is barred forever, except:

Claims may still be used as counterclaims in a case brought by the executor/administrator against the claimant.

If the executor/administrator sues or continues a case filed by the decedent:

The debtor may assert their claim as a defense instead of filing it separately in court.
Mutual claims may be set off against each other in the case.
If the court rules in favor of the defendant, the amount determined will be considered the true balance against the estate, as if the claim had been properly filed.

Claims that are not yet due or contingent may be approved at their present value.

Claims that must be filed within the period

The following claims must be filed within the period stated in the notice:

Claims for money against the decedent arising from contract, express or implied, whether due, not due, or contingent;
Claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent; and
Judgments for money against the decedent.

A judgment for money against the decedent must be presented as a claim against the estate if the judgment debtor dies before levy on execution of their properties.
When the action is for the recovery of money arising from a contract, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment, the case shall not be dismissed but shall continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced under Rule 86.
Moreover, the probate court cannot order the payment of money without a claim being filed with it. Legally speaking, the allowance of the claim would be akin to rendering a judgment without the filing of a complaint or the presentment of a claim.

Money claims against the decedent

Section 5 of Rule 86 expressly allows the prosecution of money claims arising from a contract against the estate of a deceased debtor.
Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. v. Republic-Asahi Glass Corporation, G.R. No. 147561, June 22, 2006:

On May 24, 1989, Republic-Asahi Glass Corporation (Republic-Asahi) entered into a contract with Joee D. Santos, Jr., the proprietor of JDS Construction (JDS), for the construction of roadways and a drainage system where Republic-Asahi was to pay JDS P5,300,000.00. In order to guarantee the performance of its undertakings, JDS posted a performance bond, which JDS executed jointly and severally with Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. (SICI).
Dissatisfied with the progress of the work undertaken by JDS, Republic-Asahi extrajudicially rescinded the contract. Such rescission, according to Article XV of the contract, shall not be construed as a waiver of [respondent’s] right to recover damages from JDS and the latter’s sureties. Thereafter, Republic-Asahi sent a letter to SICI filing its claim under the bond. Republic then filed a complaint against JDS and SICI. The Sheriff was not able to serve summons on Joee D. Santos, Jr. since he was already dead.
SICI claimed that Republic-Asahi’s money claims against it and JDS had been extinguished by the death of Joee D. Santos, Jr.
Was SICI’s obligation extinguished by Joee D. Santos, Jr.’s death?
NO. As a general rule, the death of either the creditor or the debtor does not extinguish the obligation. Obligations are transmissible to the heirs, except when the transmission is prevented by the law, the stipulations of the parties, or the nature of the obligation. Only obligations that are personal or are identified with the persons themselves are extinguished by death.
Section 5 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court expressly allows the prosecution of money claims arising from a contract against the estate of a deceased debtor. Evidently, those claims are not actually extinguished. What is extinguished is only the obligee’s action or suit filed before the court, which is not then acting as a probate court.
In the present case, whatever monetary liabilities or obligations Santos had under his contracts with respondent were not intransmissible by their nature, by stipulation, or by provision of law. Hence, his death did not result in the extinguishment of those obligations or liabilities, which merely passed on to his estate. Death is not a defense that he or his estate can set up to wipe out the obligations under the performance bond. Consequently, petitioner as surety cannot use his death to escape its monetary obligation under its performance bond.

Claims must be made within the prescribed period

Claims must be made within the time prescribed in the notice; otherwise, they are barred forever.
The exception to this rule is when the claim is set up as a counterclaim in an action brought by the executor or administrator of the estate.
The law imposes a time limit for the filing of claims for the following reasons:

To protect the estate of the deceased by informing the executor or administrator of the claims against it, thus enabling them to examine each claim and determine whether it is a proper one that should be allowed.
For the speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased.
For the early delivery of property to distributees, legatees, or heirs.

A money claim against an estate is more akin to a motion for creditors' claims to be recognized and taken into consideration in the proper disposition of the properties of the estate. A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the decedent’s estate. More so, if the claim is contingent, since the claimant cannot even institute a separate action for a mere contingent claim. Hence, a contingent money claim, not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against non-forum shopping.
To reiterate, only money claims may be filed against the estate, but not all money claims may be pursued. Only the money claims based on liabilities that arose before the decedent’s death may be claimed.
By way of exception, funeral expenses and expenses for the decedent’s last illness may be claimed against the estate. In this regard, expenses incurred after the decedent’s death may be claimed as expenses of administration.

Ordinary action for collection not allowed

Nacar v. Nistal, G.R. No. L-33006, December 8, 1982:

Justice Vasquez, in his concurring opinion, aptly observed:

"The fundamental error committed by the private respondents was in pursuing their claim in an ordinary action; and that by the respondent municipal judge in entertaining the same.

As can be seen from the caption and the body of the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 65, the claim of the private respondents was not against herein petitioner Nicanor Nacer but against the estate of the deceased Isabelo Nacar. It is a claim for money arising from unpaid indebtedness granted on various dates.
Isabelo Nacar died before the said complaint was filed. It does not appear that any proceeding has been filed to settle his estate. Under these facts, the filing of an ordinary action to recover said claim is not allowed in any court. Even if settlement proceedings had been taken to settle the estate of Isabelo Nacar, the suit to recover the claim of the private respondents may not be filed against the administrator or executor of his estate. This is expressly provided for in Section 1 of Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, as follows:

'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 respondents, being one arising from a contract, may be pursued only by filing the same in the administration proceedings that may be taken to settle the estate of the deceased Isabelo Nacar. If such a proceeding is instituted and the subject claim is not filed therein within the period prescribed, the same shall be deemed 'barred forever.'
Even if this action were commenced during the lifetime of Isabelo Nacar, the same shall have to be dismissed, and the claim prosecuted in the proper administration proceedings.

Contingent claims

Contingent claims refer to those claims in which liability depends on some future event that may or may not happen, making it uncertain whether there will ever be any liability.

The expression is used in contradistinction to the absolute claim, which is subject to no contingency and may be proved and allowed as a debt by the committee on claims. The absolute claim is such a claim as, if contested between living persons, would be a proper subject of immediate legal action and would supply a basis for a judgment for a sum certain.

A contingent claim does not follow the temporary orders of dismissal of an action upon which it is based; it awaits the final outcome thereof, and only said final result can cause its termination.
The rules provide that a contingent claim is to be presented in the administration proceedings in the same manner as any ordinary claim, and that when the contingency arises which converts the contingent claim into a valid claim, the court should then be informed that the claim had already matured.
Buan v. Laya, G.R. No. L-7593, December 24, 1957:

The contingent claim was based on the fact that on August 3, 1952, a Philippine Rabbit Bus, owned and operated by the deceased spouses Buan, collided with a car in which Juan C. Laya, Rodolfo Escosa, Jose S. Palma, and Juan de Leon were riding. The collision was caused by the fact that the driver of the bus managed and drove the vehicle in a negligent manner. As a consequence of the collision, Juan C. Laya was killed, and his companions suffered physical injuries.
Whether or not the heirs of the deceased, Juan C. Laya, would succeed in the action brought in Manila against the administrators of the estate of the deceased spouses Florencio Buan and Rizalina P. Buan is the uncertain event or contingency upon which the validity of the claim presented in the administration proceedings depends. While the said action has not yet been finally decided or determined to the effect that the petitioners herein, heirs of the deceased Juan C. Laya, have no right of action against the estate of the deceased spouses Florencio P. Buan and Rizalina P. Buan, the contingent claim that petitioners have filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac in the proceedings for the administration of the deceased spouses Florencio P. Buan and Rizalina P. Buan may not be dismissed.

Implied contract

The term “implied contract” is used in the common law sense and includes those arising from ex lege or quasi-contract, such as for the return of goods from the person to whom the goods were mistakenly delivered, who thus becomes a debtor in favor of the true owner under an implied contract.
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Absolute Management Corporation G.R. No. 170498, January 9, 2013:

Sherwood Holdings Corporation, Inc. (SHCI) filed a complaint for a sum of money against Absolute Management Corporation (AMC). SHCI alleged that it made advance payments to AMC for the purchase of pieces of plywood and plyboards, covered by Metrobank checks. These checks were all crossed and made payable to AMC. They were given to Chua, AMC's General Manager.
Chua died in 1999, and a special proceeding for the settlement of his estate was commenced before the RTC of Pasay City. This proceeding was pending at the time AMC filed its answer with counterclaims and third-party complaints.
SHCI made demands on AMC, after Chua's death, for allegedly undelivered items. Upon investigation, AMC discovered that in 1998, Chua received from SHCI 18 Metrobank checks. These were all payable to AMC and were crossed or "for payee's account only." AMC argued that it was unaware of Chua's transactions with SHCI and that it did not receive any money from the latter.
Metrobank admitted that it deposited the checks in question to the account of Ayala Lumber and Hardware, a sole proprietorship owned and managed by Chua. The deposit was allegedly done with the knowledge and consent of AMC. According to Metrobank, Chua gave the assurance that the arrangement for the handling of the checks carried AMC's consent. Chua also submitted documents showing his position and interest in AMC.
Metrobank filed a motion for leave to admit a fourth-party complaint against Chua's estate. It alleged that Chua's estate should reimburse Metrobank in case it would be held liable in the third-party complaint filed against it by AMC.
Should Metrobank be allowed to file a fourth-party complaint against Chua's estate?
YES. The term "quasi-contract" is included in the concept of "implied contracts" as used in the Rules of Court. Accordingly, liabilities of the deceased arising from quasi-contracts should be filed as claims in the settlement of his estate, as provided in Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals described Metrobank's claim against Chua's estate as one based on quasi-contract. A quasi-contract involves a juridical relation that the law creates based on certain voluntary, unilateral, and lawful acts of a person, to avoid unjust enrichment.
Article 2154 of the Civil Code embodies the concept of solutio indebiti, which arises when something is delivered through mistake to a person who has no right to demand it. It obligates the latter to return what has been received through mistake.
A distinctive character of Metrobank's fourth-party complaint is its contingent nature—the claim depends on the possibility that Metrobank would be adjudged liable to AMC, a future event that may or may not happen. This characteristic unmistakably marks the complaint as a contingent one that must be included in the claims falling under the terms of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.

Claim for damages arising from breach of contract of transportation

Bautista v. De Guzman G.R. No. L-28298, November 25, 1983:

Numeriano Bautista was a passenger of a jeepney that was owned and operated by Rosendo De Guzman. Eugenio Medrano was Rosendo's employee and was the driver of the jeepney Numeriano was in. Eugenio drove the jeepney recklessly, and Numeriano sustained injuries which caused his death. Eugenio was convicted in a criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence, and he was ordered to indemnify Bautista's heirs. However, the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied. Later, Rosendo died.
Unable to collect damages from Eugenio, the Bautistas filed a complaint against the De Guzmans. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the suit was a money claim against a dead debtor (Rosendo) and should have been filed in the testate or intestate proceedings.
Was the dismissal of the complaint proper?
YES. Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court is mandatory. The requirement therein is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased. The executor or administrator is informed of the claims against it, thus enabling him to examine each claim and determine whether it is a proper one that should be allowed.
Therefore, upon the dismissal of the first complaint, they should have presented their claims before the intestate proceedings filed in the same court. Instead of doing so, however, the plaintiffs-appellees slept on their right. They allowed said proceedings to terminate and the properties to be distributed to the heirs pursuant to a project of partition before instituting this separate action.
With the exception provided for in Rule 86, the failure of the Bautistas to present their claims before the intestate proceedings of the estate of Rosendo de Guzman within the prescribed period constituted a bar to a subsequent claim against the estate or a similar action of the same import. Therefore, it was an error on the part of the trial court to hold that the plaintiffs-appellees had a cause of action against the defendants-appellants, who are the heirs of the deceased against whom the liability is sought to be enforced. Much less could the court take cognizance of the complaint. As in the first complaint, said court could not have assumed jurisdiction over the second case for the simple reason that it was no longer acting as a probate court, which was the proper forum to file such a complaint. The termination of the intestate proceedings and the distribution of the estate to the heirs did not alter the fact that plaintiffs-appellees' claim was a money claim that should have been presented before the probate court.
The liability of the late Rosendo de Guzman arose from the breach of his obligations under the contract of carriage between him and the unfortunate passenger. The obligations are spelled out by law, but the liability arose from a breach of contractual obligations. The resulting claim is a money claim.
The only instance wherein a creditor can file an action against a distributee of the debtor's asset is under Section 5, Rule 88 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

"If such contingent claim becomes absolute and is presented to the court, or to the executor or administrator, within two (2) years from the time limited for other creditors to present their claims, it may be allowed by the court if not disputed by the executor or administrator, and, if disputed, it may be proved and allowed or disallowed by the court as the facts may warrant. If the contingent claim is allowed, the creditor shall receive payment to the same extent as the other creditors if the estate retained by the executor or administrator is sufficient.

But if the claim is not so presented, after having become absolute, within said two (2) years, and allowed, the assets retained in the hands of the executor or administrator, not exhausted in the payment of claims, shall be distributed by the order of the court to the persons entitled to the same; but the assets so distributed may still be applied to the payment of the claim when established, and the creditor may maintain an action against the distributees to recover the debt, and such distributees and their estates shall be liable for the debt in proportion to the estate they have respectively received from the property of the deceased."

Even under the above rule, the contingent claims must first have been established and allowed in the probate court before the creditors can file an action directly against the distributees. Such is not the situation, however, in the case at bar. The complaint herein was filed after the intestate proceedings had terminated and the estate was finally distributed to the heirs. If we are to allow the complaint to prosper and the trial court to take cognizance of the same, then the rules providing for the claims against the estate in a testate or intestate proceeding within a specific period would be rendered nugatory, as a subsequent action for money against the distributees may be filed independently of such proceedings. This is precisely what the rule seeks to prevent so as to avoid further delays in the settlement of the estate of the deceased and in the distribution of his property to the heirs, legatees, or devisees.
Furthermore, even assuming that the plaintiffs-appellees had no knowledge of the intestate proceedings, which is not established, the law presumes that they had such knowledge because the settlement of an estate is a proceeding in rem. Therefore, the failure to file their claims before such proceedings barred them from subsequently filing the same claims outside said proceedings.

Claims which survive death

Claims for civil liability survive notwithstanding the death of the accused if the same may also be based on a source of obligation other than delict, such as contract, law, quasi-contract, and quasi-delict.
A separate civil action may be enforced either against:

The estate of the accused, in case of a contract; or
The executor or administrator, in case of law, quasi-contract, and quasi-delict.

Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict do not fall within the class of claims to be filed under the notice to creditors required under Rule 86. These actions, being civil, survive the death of the decedent and may be commenced against the administrator pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87.

Judgment for money

When judgment in a civil case has become final and executory, execution is not a proper remedy to enforce payment; the claimant should present the claim before the probate court.
Similarly, mandamus is not an available remedy for the immediate payment of a claim by an administrator because such is not a matter of right.
In the absence of any showing that the probate judge who is taking cognizance of the estate proceedings had already allowed the administrator to dispose of the estate and to pay the debts and legacies of the deceased, a writ of mandamus will not issue to compel him to order payment of a creditor's claim.
Property levied upon in case the judgment debtor dies after the entry of judgment may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment in case death occurs "after execution is actually levied."
On the other hand, Section 5 of Rule 86 provides that a judgment for money against the decedent must be filed with the court in the proceeding for the settlement of the estate.
In other words, the cut-off date is the date of actual levy of execution.

If the judgment debtor dies after such levy, the property levied upon may be sold;
If before, the money judgment must be presented as a claim against the estate, although the same need no longer be proved, the judgment itself being conclusive.

But the judgment creditor will share the estate with other creditors, subject only to such preferences as are provided by law.

SEC. 6. Solidary obligation of the decedent. —

Where the obligation of the decedent

is solidary with another debtor,

the claim shall be filed against the decedent

as if he were the only debtor,

without prejudice to the right of the estate

to recover contribution from the debtor.

In a joint obligation of the decedent,

the claim shall be confined to the portion belonging to him.

Sec. 6: Solidary Obligations

If the decedent was a solidary debtor, the claim is filed as if he were the sole debtor.

estate may recover from co-debtors

If the decedent had a joint obligation, only his share is claimed.

It may happen that the decedent is a debtor in either a solidary or joint obligation.
If the obligation is solidary, the creditor is mandated to file a claim against the decedent as if he were the only debtor, i.e., to collect the entire amount.

If the creditor succeeds in collecting from the decedent debtor, the estate has the right to recover the respective contributions of the other debtors.

Conversely, if the obligation is joint, the claim shall be properly limited to the portion owed by the decedent.
Accordingly, failure to file a claim for the solidary obligation against the decedent's estate bars it.
While collection from the decedent's estate is barred by the failure to file a claim for solidary obligation, this does not result in the extinction of the obligation.

A cursory perusal of Section 6, Rule 86 reveals that nothing therein prevents a creditor from proceeding against the surviving solidary debtors. Said provision merely sets up the procedure in enforcing collection in case a creditor chooses to pursue his claim against the estate of the deceased solidary debtor.
The rule has been set forth that a creditor (in a solidary obligation) has the option whether to file or not to file a claim against the estate of the solidary debtor.

It is clear that Article 1216 of the Civil Code is the applicable provision in this matter.

Said provision gives the creditor the right to "proceed against anyone of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously." The choice is undoubtedly left to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection.
In case of the death of one of the solidary debtors, he (the creditor) may, if he so chooses, proceed against the surviving solidary debtors without necessity of filing a claim in the estate of the deceased debtor. It is not mandatory for him to have the case dismissed as against the surviving debtors and file his claim against the estate of the deceased solidary debtor, as was made apparent in the aforequoted decision. For to require the creditor to proceed against the estate, making it a condition precedent for any collection action against the surviving debtors to prosper, would deprive him of his substantive rights provided by Article 1216 of the Civil Code.

SEC. 7. Mortgage debt due from estate. —

A creditor holding a claim against the deceased

secured by mortgage or other collateral security,

may abandon the security and prosecute his claim

in the manner provided in this rule,

and share in the general distribution

of the assets of the estate;

or he may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security,

by action in court,

making the executor or administrator a party defendant,

and if there is a judgment for a deficiency,

after the sale of the mortgaged premises,

or the property pledged,

in the foreclosure or other proceeding

to realize upon the security,

he may claim his deficiency judgment

in the manner provided in the preceding section

or he may rely upon his mortgage or other security alone,

and foreclose the same at any time

within the period of the statute of limitations,

and in that event he shall not be admitted as a creditor,

and shall receive no share in the distribution

of the other assets of the estate;

but nothing herein contained shall prohibit

the executor or administrator from redeeming

the property mortgaged or pledged,

by paying the debt for which it is held as security,

under the direction of the court,

if the court shall adjudge it to be

for the best interest of the estate

that such redemption shall be made.

Sec. 7: Mortgage debt due from estate.

A creditor with a mortgage or collateral security against the decedent has three options:

Abandon the security

File a claim as an unsecured creditor under this rule.
Participate in the general distribution of the estate's assets.

Foreclose the mortgage/security

File an action in court, naming the executor/administrator as a defendant.
If the sale of the mortgaged/pledged property does not cover the full debt, the creditor may:

File a deficiency claim against the estate.

Rely solely on the mortgage/security

Foreclose the property within the statute of limitations.
No right to claim from the estate or participate in asset distribution.

The executor/administrator may redeem the mortgaged/pledged property.
Redemption is subject to court approval if it serves the best interest of the estate.

Options available to a secured creditor

A creditor holding a claim against the deceased secured by mortgage or other collateral security has three options:

Abandon the security and prosecute his claim against the estate and share in the general distribution of the assets thereof;
Foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security by action in court, making the executor or administrator a party defendant, and if there is judgment for deficiency, he may file a contingent claim against the estate within the statute of non-claims;
Rely solely on his mortgage and foreclose (judicial or extrajudicial) the same at any time within the period of the statute of limitations but he cannot be admitted as a creditor and shall not receive in the distribution of the other assets of the estate.

Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121597, June 29, 2001:

Case law now holds that this rule grants to the mortgagee three distinct, independent, and mutually exclusive remedies that can be alternatively pursued by the mortgage creditor for the satisfaction of his credit in case the mortgagor dies:

To waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim;
To foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove any deficiency as an ordinary claim; and
To rely on the mortgage exclusively, foreclosing the same at any time before it is barred by prescription without right to file a claim for any deficiency.

Indeed, these remedies are distinct, independent, and mutually exclusive from each other.
Maglasang v. Manila Banking Corporation G.R. No. 171206, September 23, 2013:

Spouses Flaviano and Salud Maglasang obtained a credit line from Manila Banking Corporation (MBC), which was secured by a real estate mortgage executed over seven of their properties. After Flaviano died intestate, Salud and their children appointed Edgar Maglasang as their attorney-in-fact. Edgar filed a petition for letters of administration of the intestate estate of Flaviano, which the court granted. The court then issued a Notice to Creditors for the filing of money claims against Flaviano's estate. During the pendency of the intestate proceedings, Edgar and his brother, Oscar, obtained several loans from MBC, secured by promissory notes.
The probate court terminated the proceedings after Flaviano's surviving heirs executed an extrajudicial partition of the estate. However, the loan obligations of the estate to MBC remained unsatisfied due to its certification that Flaviano's account was undergoing restructuring. The court, however, recognized MBC's rights under the mortgage executed by the Spouses Maglasang, as well as its right to foreclose the mortgaged property. MBC proceeded to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage, and it was the highest bidder at the public auction. However, there was a deficiency in Spouses Maglasang's obligation. Consequently, MBC filed a suit for the recovery of the deficiency against Flaviano's estate, his widow, and petitioners.
Petitioners assert that it is not Act No. 3135 but Section 7, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court which applies in this case. Having filed its claim against the estate during the intestate proceedings, petitioners argue that MBC had effectively waived the remedy of foreclosure and, even assuming that it still had the right to do so, it was precluded from filing a suit for the recovery of the deficiency obligation.
Does MBC have the right to recover the deficiency?
NO. Jurisprudence breaks down the rule under Section 7, Rule 86 and explains that the secured creditor has three remedies/options that he may alternatively adopt for the satisfaction of his indebtedness. In particular, he may choose to:

(a) Waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim;
(b) Foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove the deficiency as an ordinary claim; and
(c) Rely on the mortgage exclusively, or other security and foreclose the same before it is barred by prescription, without the right to file a claim for any deficiency.

It must, however, be emphasized that these remedies are distinct, independent, and mutually exclusive from each other; thus, the election of one effectively bars the exercise of the others.
Anent the third remedy, it must be mentioned that the same includes the option of extra-judicially foreclosing the mortgage under Act No. 3135, as availed of by respondent in this case. However, the plain result of adopting the last mode of foreclosure is that the creditor waives his right to recover any deficiency from the estate.
To obviate any confusion, the Court observes that the operation of Act No. 3135 does not entirely discount the application of Section 7, Rule 86, or vice versa. Rather, the two complement each other within their respective spheres of operation. On the one hand, Section 7, Rule 86 lays down the options for the secured creditor to claim against the estate and, according to jurisprudence, the availment of the third option bars him from claiming any deficiency amount. On the other hand, after the third option is chosen, the procedure governing the manner in which the extra-judicial foreclosure should proceed would still be governed by the provisions of Act No. 3135.
Simply put, Section 7, Rule 86 governs the parameters and the extent to which a claim may be advanced against the estate, whereas Act No. 3135 sets out the specific procedure to be followed when the creditor subsequently chooses the third option—specifically, that of extra-judicially foreclosing real property belonging to the estate. The application of the procedure under Act No. 3135 must be concordant with Section 7, Rule 86 as the latter is a special rule applicable to claims against the estate, and at the same time, since Section 7, Rule 86 does not detail the procedure for extra-judicial foreclosures, the formalities governing the manner of availing of the third option—such as the place where the application for extra-judicial foreclosure is filed, the requirements of publication and posting, and the place of sale—must be governed by Act No. 3135.
In this case, MBC sought to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage of the properties previously belonging to Spouses Maglasang and, therefore, availed of the third option. Lest it be misunderstood, it did not exercise the first option of directly filing a claim against the estate, as petitioners assert, since it merely notified the probate court of the outstanding amount of its claim against the estate of Flaviano and that it was currently restructuring the account. Thus, having unequivocally opted to exercise the third option of extra-judicial foreclosure under Section 7, Rule 86, MBC is now precluded from filing a suit to recover any deficiency amount as earlier discussed.

Redemption

If the court adjudges that it would be in the best interest of the estate, it may order the executor or administrator to redeem property mortgaged or pledged by paying the debt for which it is held as security.
The mortgagee does not lose his right to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage even after the death of the mortgagor as a third alternative under Section 7, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.
If the creditor chooses to abandon the security, he cannot later maintain an action upon the mortgage to foreclose it. He may also, at his own election, foreclose the mortgage and realize upon the security. But the law does not permit that he may have both remedies. If he elects one, he must renounce the other. If he fails in one, he fails utterly. He is not permitted, under said section, to annoy those interested in the estate of deceased persons, by two actions for exactly the same purpose.

SEC. 8. Claim of executor or administrator against an estate. —

If the executor or administrator has a claim

against the estate he represents,

he shall give notice thereof, in writing, to the court,

and the court shall appoint a special administrator,

who shall, in the adjustment of such claim,

have the same power and be subject to the same liability

as the general administrator or executor

in the settlement of other claims.

The court may order the executor or administrator

to pay to the special administrator necessary funds

to defend such claim.

Sec. 8: Claim of Executor or Administrator Against the Estate

If an executor/administrator has a claim against the estate, he must:

Notify the court in writing about the claim.
The court will appoint a special administrator to handle the claim.

The special administrator has the same powers and liabilities as the general administrator in settling claims.
The court may order the executor/administrator to provide necessary funds to the special administrator for defending the claim.

An executor or administrator who has a claim against the estate he represents is required to give written notice to the court.
The court shall then appoint a special administrator, who is vested with the same power and subjected to the same liability as the general executor or administrator but only as to the adjustment of the claim.
The executor or administrator having a claim against the estate cannot simply pay himself from the estate. It is neither proper nor lawful for an executor or administrator of an estate to pay to himself claims he may have against the deceased and to take possession of property of the same to which he thinks he is entitled, without observing the procedure fixed by the law.
From an estate proceeding perspective, the special administrator's commission is no less a claim against the estate than a claim that third parties may make. The ruling on the extent of the special administrator's commission—effectively, a claim by the special administrator against the estate—is the lower court's last word on the matter and one that is appealable.

SEC. 9. How to file a claim. Contents thereof. Notice to executor or administrator. —

A claim may be filed by delivering the same

with the necessary vouchers to the clerk of court

and by serving a copy thereof on the executor or administrator.

If the claim be founded

on a bond, bill, note, or any other instrument,

the original need not be filed,

but a copy thereof with all indorsements shall be attached

to the claim and filed therewith.

On demand, however, of the executor or administrator,

or by order of the court or judge,

the original shall be exhibited, unless it be list or destroyed,

in which case the claimant must accompany his claim

with affidavit or affidavits containing

a copy or particular description of the instrument

and stating its loss or destruction.

When the claim is due,

it must be supported by affidavit stating

the amount justly due,

that no payments have been made thereon

which are not credited,

and that there are no offsets to the same,

to the knowledge of the affiant.

If the claim is not due, or is contingent, when filed,

it must also be supported by affidavits

stating the particulars thereof.

When the affidavit is made by a person other than the claimant,

he must set forth therein the reason why

it is not made by the claimant.

The claim once filed shall be attached

to the record of the case in which

the letters testamentary or of administration were issued,

although the court, in its discretion,

and as a matter of convenience,

may order all the claims to be collected in a separate folder.

Sec. 9: How to file a claim. Contents thereof. Notice to executor or administrator.

Where and How to File a Claim

Deliver the claim with necessary vouchers to the clerk of court.
Serve a copy of the claim to the executor/administrator.

Claims Based on Written Instruments (Bonds, Notes, etc.)

The original document is not required; a copy with all endorsements must be attached.
If requested by the executor/administrator or ordered by the court, the original must be presented unless:

It is lost or destroyed, in which case an affidavit must be submitted with:

A copy or description of the instrument.
A statement explaining its loss or destruction.

Supporting Affidavit Requirements

For due claims, the affidavit must state:

The amount justly due.
That no uncredited payments have been made.
That no offsets exist, to the affiant’s knowledge.

For claims not yet due or contingent, the affidavit must:

State the specific details of the claim.

If the claimant does not personally file the affidavit, the filer must explain why.

Attachment of the Claim

The filed claim is attached to the estate case records.
The court may order all claims to be collected in a separate folder for convenience.

Procedure for Filing Claims

A person having a claim against the estate must comply with the following procedure:

The claim must be delivered with the necessary vouchers to the clerk of court.
A copy must be served on the executor or administrator.
If the claim is founded on an instrument, it must be attached to the claim and filed therewith.
If the claim is due, an affidavit supporting such claim must be filed, stating:

The amount justly due;
That no payments have been made thereon which are not credited; and
That there are no offsets to the same.

If the claim is not due or is contingent, it must be supported by affidavits stating its particulars.
When a person other than the claimant makes the affidavit, the reasons why it is not made by the claimant must be stated.

The voucher mentioned in Section 9 refers to the affidavit to be submitted by the claimant.
With respect to claims founded on written documents, the original need not be filed upon the submission of the affidavit. It suffices that a copy of the written document is attached to the claim and filed with the court.

However, the original must be exhibited on demand of the executor or administrator, or by order of the court, unless it is lost or destroyed.
If the original is lost or destroyed, the claimant is required to furnish the court with affidavits containing a copy or particular description of the instrument and to state its loss or destruction.

SEC. 10. Answer of Executor or Administrator. Offsets. —

Within fifteen (15) days after service

of a copy of the claim on the executor or administrator,

he shall file his answer

admitting or denying the claim specifically

and setting forth the admission or denial.

If he has no knowledge sufficient

to enable him to admit or deny specifically,

he shall state such want of knowledge.

The executor or administrator,

in his answer, shall allege

in offset any claim which the decedent,

before death, had against the claimant,

and his failure to do so shall bar the claim forever.

A copy of the answer shall be served

by the executor or administrator on the claimant.

The court, in its discretion,

may extend the time for filing such an answer.

Sec. 10: Answer of Executor or Administrator

The executor or administrator must file an answer within 15 days after being served with a copy of the claim.
The answer must:

Admit or deny the claim specifically.
If lacking sufficient knowledge, state such want of knowledge.

The executor or administrator must allege any offsets (claims of the decedent against the claimant).

Failure to allege offsets bars them forever.

A copy of the answer must be served on the claimant.
The court may extend the time for filing the answer.

The executor or administrator must file an answer within fifteen (15) days after service of a copy of the claim, but the court, in its discretion, may extend the time for filing the answer.
The answer shall either specifically admit or deny the claim.
The executor or administrator shall further allege in offset any claim which the decedent, before death, had against the claimant. Failure to allege such an offset shall bar the claim forever.

SEC. 11. Disposition of Admitted Claim. —

Any claim admitted entirely by the executor or administrator

shall immediately be submitted by the clerk to the court,

which may approve the same without hearing.

However, the court, in its discretion,

before approving the claim,

may order that known heirs, legatees, or devisees

be notified and heard.

If, upon hearing, an heir, legatee, or devisee

opposes the claim, the court may,

in its discretion, allow him fifteen (15) days

to file an answer to the claim

in the manner prescribed in the preceding section.

Sec. 11: Disposition of Admitted Claim

If the claim is entirely admitted, the clerk submits it to the court for approval.
The court:

may approve the claim without a hearing or
may require notification of known heirs, legatees, or devisees.

If any heir, legatee, or devisee opposes the claim, the court may allow 15 days to file an answer.

When the executor or administrator entirely admits a claim, it shall be submitted by the clerk of court, who may approve it without hearing. In the court's discretion and before it approves the claim, it may order that known heirs, legatees, or devisees be notified and heard.
If, upon hearing, an heir, legatee, or devisee opposes the claim, the court may allow him fifteen (15) days to file an answer.
If the court allows the claim, it may grant less but not more than the amount stated in the claim.

SEC. 12. Trial of Contested Claim. —

Upon the filing of an answer to a claim,

or upon the expiration of the time for such filing,

the clerk of court shall set the claim for trial

with notice to both parties.

The court may refer the claim to a commissioner.

Sec. 12: Trial of Contested Claim

If an answer is filed or the time to file expires, the clerk sets the claim for trial with notice to both parties.
The court may refer the claim to a commissioner for review.

The obligation of the clerk of court to set the claim for trial arises upon the occurrence of either of the following:

The filing of an answer to the claim; or
The expiration of the time for such filing.

Notice shall be sent to both parties regarding the setting of the claim for trial.
The court may refer the claim to a commissioner.

SEC. 13. Judgment Appealable. —

The judgment of the court

approving or disapproving a claim

shall be filed with the record

of the administration proceedings,

with notice to both parties,

and is appealable as in ordinary cases.

Sec. 13: Judgment Appealable

The judgment (approving or disapproving the claim) is filed in the administration record with notice to both parties.
The judgment is appealable as in ordinary cases.
A judgment against the executor or administrator states that he must pay in due course of administration.
The judgment does not:

create a lien on estate property or
give the claimant priority of payment.

A judgment against the executor or administrator shall require him to pay, in due course of administration, the amount ascertained to be due.

However, it shall not create any lien upon the property of the estate or give the judgment creditor any priority of payment.

The judgment of the court approving or disapproving a claim shall be appealable.
This is included among the orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken under Section 1 of Rule 109, viz:

"(c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the estate of a deceased person x x x."

SEC. 14. Costs. —

When the executor or administrator,

in his answer, admits and offers to pay part of a claim,

and the claimant refuses to accept

the amount offered in satisfaction of his claim,

if he fails to obtain a more favorable judgment,

he cannot recover costs but must pay

the executor or administrator costs from the time of the offer.

Where an action commenced against the deceased for money

has been discontinued and the claim embraced therein

is presented as provided in this rule,

the prevailing party shall be allowed

the costs of his action up to the time of its discontinuance.

Sec. 14: Costs

If the executor/administrator admits and offers to pay part of a claim but the claimant refuses:

If the claimant fails to get a more favorable judgment, he cannot recover costs and must pay costs from the time of the offer.

If an action against the deceased was discontinued and the claim was presented under this rule:

The prevailing party may recover costs up to the time of discontinuance.

Climaco vs. Siy Uy (19 SCRA 858)

Leon Climaco filed a damages case against Carlos Siy Uy and Manuel Co, alleging they maliciously filed estafa charges against him, leading to financial losses and reputational harm.
Before Siy Uy could be served summons, he died on August 27, 1958.
Climaco sought to amend his complaint to substitute Siy Uy's heirs or his estate executor as defendants.
Trial Court: Initially allowed the amendment but later reversed its decision and dismissed the entire case on January 12, 1959.
Whether Climaco's cause of action for damages survives against the deceased defendant's estate.
The dismissal of the complaint against Carlos Siy Uy was correct.

.Action against Siy Uy’s estate is not allowed under Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, as the damages sought were not based on injury to Climaco’s person or property.

The dismissal of the complaint against Manuel Co was erroneous, necessitating further proceedings against him.

However, the trial court erred in dismissing the case against Manuel Co, who was still a living defendant.
The dismissal against Manuel Co is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

De Bautista vs De Guzman (125 SCRA 676)

On May 10, 1952, Numeriano Bautista was a passenger in a jeepney owned and operated by Rosendo de Guzman.
The jeepney, driven by Eugenio Medrano, overturned due to negligent and reckless driving.
Bautista sustained injuries that led to his death.
Medrano was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence and ordered to pay P3,000.00 in indemnity to Bautista’s heirs.
The indemnity could not be collected as Medrano had no assets.
Bautista’s heirs sued Rosendo de Guzman and his heirs for indemnity and damages.
Trial Cout: Dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, as the claim should have been presented in estate proceedings.

Rosendo de Guzman died on May 12, 1952, and intestate proceedings were held, leading to the estate’s distribution.

In 1954, Bautista’s heirs filed a new case after the estate was distributed, again seeking indemnity and damages.
Whether the trial court erred in entertaining the case despite the claim being barred for failure to file within estate proceedings.
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint.
Under Rule 86, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, money claims against a deceased must be filed within estate proceedings; failure to do so bars recovery.
The estate had already been distributed, and the plaintiffs-appellees failed to assert their claim within the probate process.
Even under Rule 88, Section 5, claims must first be established in probate court before being pursued against distributees.
Allowing the claim would render estate settlement rules meaningless and create delays.

Torres vs. CA (278 SCRA 793)

Petitioners are associated with the late Judge Manuel A. Torres, Jr., the majority stockholder and key corporate officer of Tormil Realty, while private respondents are the minority stockholders, being the children of his deceased brother.
In 1984, Judge Torres executed deeds of assignment transferring properties and corporate shares to Tormil Realty in exchange for 225,972 shares.
Due to a shortage of 972 shares and alleged refusal of private respondents to approve an increase in capital, Judge Torres revoked the deeds covering properties in Makati and Pasay City on September 11, 1986.
Private respondents challenged this, alleging improper removal of corporate assets and subsequent transfer of the properties to a newly formed corporation, Torres-Pabalan Realty.
In the 1987 stockholders’ meeting, Judge Torres assigned "qualifying shares" to his nominees to secure their election to the board.
Minority stockholders objected, citing violations of their preemptive rights.
Private respondents filed a complaint with the SEC, which nullified the election and ordered the restoration of corporate records.
Whether the SEC and Court of Appeals’ rulings were null and void due to the lack of substitution of Judge Torres’ estate after his death.
The case proceeded validly because interested parties were already actively litigating.

The requirement for substitution did not adversely affect the proceedings because the parties contesting the estate’s interests were already present and vigorously litigating in the probate proceedings.
The rights of the estate were thus adequately protected notwithstanding the formal absence of the appointment of a legal representative at the time of the proceedings.

The rule on substitution of parties in the event of a party’s death is aimed at protecting due process.

Rule 3, Sec. 17 of the Rules of Court mandates that a deceased party must be substituted by a legal representative or heirs to protect due process.
When the interested parties are already engaged in parallel probate proceedings, formal substitution may be dispensed with as the rights of the deceased’s estate are inherently represented.
However, when the parties who have an interest in the deceased’s estate are already actively participating in the proceedings, the absence of a formal substitution does not vitiate the decision.

Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 86