Statute of Non-claims

Mr. Paktay died intestate on August 24, 2014. His widow initiated intestate
proceedings and on September 30, 2014 the probate court issued an order
granting letters of administration. It also issued a notice requiring the payment of
all claims within 12 months. On October 4, 2015, Makalimutin Inc.s CFO realized
that Mr. Paktay still had an outstanding P1,500,000 loan. Makalimutin Inc
thereafter filed its claim on November 4, 2015. Mrs Paktay, the administratrix,
argues that the 1-month period to file a tardy claim has already lapsed on
October 30, 2015.
Is she correct? Explain.
No, Mrs. Paktay is not correct. The statute of non-claims mandates that all claims
against the estate must be filed within the period fixed by the probate court,
which shall not be less than 6 months nor more than 12 months after the first
publication of the notice. A creditor may file a tardy claim, however, at any time
before an order of distribution after showing cause and within a period not
exceeding 1 month. This 1 month period is reckoned from the order authorizing
the payment of the tardy claim and not from the original period fixed by the
probate court.
(Rule 86 Sec 2; Barredo vs CA GR No L-17863 Nov 28, 1962)
Judicial and Extrajudicial Partition
When Tomas Sabaybunot died intestate on Oct 30, 2013, he was survived by his
wife Barbie and his only son Paltik (27 years old). Being a thrifty person while he
was still alive, Tomas owed not a cent to anyone when he died. Now Barbie and
Paltik co-owned a 20,000 sq.m parcel of land in Laguna which they purchased
back in 2006. Paltik was closer to his father, and when his father died, he and his
mom slowly drifted apart. Apathy suddenly turned into hostility when Paltik
executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication on July 7, 2015. He included the
Laguna property in this affidavit. Paltik argues that, being the only son, he had a
right to execute the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.
Is he correct? Explain.
No, Paltik is incorrect. If a decedent dies with no will, no debts and his heirs are
all of age (or his minor heirs are represented), then his heirs may extrajudicially
settle his estate among themselves. This is by way of a public instrument in case
there is more than one heir and all of them agree, or by way of an affidavit filed
with the register of deeds if there is only one heir.
Here, Paltik is not the only heir when Tomas died. Barbie, being the wife, is also
a compulsory heir. Paltiks proper remedy would have been to file an ordinary

action for partition under Rule 69 both with respect to Tomas estate and the
Laguna property which Paltik and Barbie co-owned.
Adoption
Miguel and Julia Tayag adopted Sophie (2 years old) on December 1998.
Sophie grew up to be a beautiful child despite being constantly subjected to
hurtful invectives by the spouses Tayag. When she reached 18 years old, Sophie
filed a petition to rescind the spouses adoption. The Tayags filed a similar
petition against Sophie for being an ingrate.
If Sophie is Miguels illegitimate daughter, can Miguel adopt Sophie alone?
When may a married prospective adopter adopt a child without his
spouse?
Yes, Miguel may adopt Sophie alone, but he must secure Julias consent. The
rule is that husband and wife must jointly adopt, except (i) if one spouse seeks to
adopt the legitimate child of one spouse by the other spouse; or (ii) if one spouse
seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child, provided that the other spouse
consents; or (iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.
(Sec 4 (3) AM 02-6-02-sc)
What are the grounds for the rescission of adoption?
The adoptee may file a petition for rescission of adoption because of (a) repeated
physical and verbal maltreatment by the adopter(s) despite having undergone
counseling; (b) attempt on the life of the adoptee; (c) sexual assault or violence;
or (d) abandonment and failure to comply with parental obligations.
(Sec 19, RA 8552)
Should the Sps Tayags petition be allowed?
No, adoption is in the best interest of the adopted child. It is not subject to
rescission by the adopter.
(Sec 19, RA 8552)
Miguel Tayag died of a heart attack a year before the court granted Sophies
petition for rescission. In the intestate proceedings of the estate of Miguel,
Sophie presented herself as one of his heirs.
Is she correct? Explain.

Yes, Sophie is correct. She is entitled her share as a compulsory heir of Miguel
Tayag. The rescission of adoption has the effect of extinguishing the reciprocal
rights and obligations between the adopter and the adoptee. This includes
reciprocal successional rights, which reverts to its status prior to adoption but
only as of the date of judgment of judicial rescission.
Since there has been no judicial rescission as of the date of Miguels death, and
since the rights of succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of
the decedent, Sophie became entitled to her share as a compulsory heir even
before the judicial rescission of the adoption.
(Sec 20, RA 8552; Art 777 Civil Code)
Sylvain and Silvia Mcnamara wanted to adopted baby Victoria. Sylvain is a
Canadian citizen, while Silvia is a Filipina. Baby Victoria suffers from congenital
heart disease and was in an extremely precarious condition when she was
voluntarily committed to the DSWD on February 2, 2014. Having complied with
all the documentary and substantive requirements imposed by the DSWD, the
Mcnamaras wanted to bring baby Victoria to Canada with them on their flight
which was scheduled on May 24, 2014.
Should they be allowed to bring Victoria with them?
Yes, they should be allowed. The general rule is that the physical transfer of the
adoptee cannot be made earlier than 6 months from the execution of the Deed of
Voluntary Commitment by the childs biological parents, but this prohibition does
not apply when the child has a special medical condition.
(Sec 26, IRR of RA 8043)