0% found this document useful (0 votes)
50 views1 page

Sheker Case

The RTC dismissed Alan Sheker's contingent money claim against an estate for failing to include documents like a certification against forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the RTC erred because (1) probate rules allow civil rules to apply only when practicable, and requiring such documents would not obstruct probate proceedings, and (2) a money claim is an incidental matter, not an initiatory pleading, so it does not require a certification against forum shopping. The RTC should not have strictly applied rules for civil complaints to Alan's probate money claim.

Uploaded by

gypsy_cutieee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
50 views1 page

Sheker Case

The RTC dismissed Alan Sheker's contingent money claim against an estate for failing to include documents like a certification against forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the RTC erred because (1) probate rules allow civil rules to apply only when practicable, and requiring such documents would not obstruct probate proceedings, and (2) a money claim is an incidental matter, not an initiatory pleading, so it does not require a certification against forum shopping. The RTC should not have strictly applied rules for civil complaints to Alan's probate money claim.

Uploaded by

gypsy_cutieee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

SHEKER V.

ESTATE OF SHEKER
FACTS
The RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice Sheker & issued an order for all creditors to file their
claims against the estate. Alan Sheker (Alan) filed a contingent claim for agents commission due him. The
executrix of the Estate of Sheker moved for the dismissal of the money claim (this was granted) on the ff grounds:
1.
Alan failed to pay the requisite docket fee
2.
Alan failed to attach a certification against non-forum shopping
3.
Alan failed to attach written explanation why the money claim was not filed & served personally
Alans contention: The RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate proceeding the rules requiring the payment of
docket fees upon filing of the claim, a certification of non-forum shopping, & a written explanation for non-personal
filing. Sec. 2 or Rule 72 of the RC provides that rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only in
a SUPPLETORY manner.
ISSUE
W/N the RTC erred is dismissing Alans contingent money claim for failure to attach to his motion a certification
against non-forum shopping.
RULING
YES. Special provisions under Part II of the RC govern special proceedings; but in the absence of special provisions,
the rules provided for in Part I governing ordinary civil actions shall be applicable to special proceedings, as far as
practicable. The word practicable is defined as possible to practice or perform, capable of being put into
practice, done or accomplished. Thus, in the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be
applied in special proceedings as much as possible & where doing so would not pose an obstacle to proceedings.
Provisions of the RC requiring a cert. of non-forum shopping for complaints & initiatory pleadings would NOT in any
way obstruct probate proceedings.
The certification against non-forum shopping is required only for COMPLAINTS & OTHER INITIATORY PLEADINGS. The
RTC erred in ruling that a contingent money claim against the estate of a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the
case at bar, the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for the allowance of the
decedents will. A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the decedents
estate. Hence, Alans contingent claim, not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against nonforum shopping.

You might also like