9/6/24, 3:56 PM Sheker vs.
Sheker
Title
Sheker vs. Sheker
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 157912 Dec 13, 2007
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner in Sheker v. Sheker, clarifying that a
money claim against an estate in probate proceedings does not require a certification
against non-forum shopping and non-payment of filing fees is not a ground for
dismissal.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 157912)
Comprehensive
Facts:
The case of Sheker v. Sheker revolves around a dispute concerning a money claim against
the estate of Alice O. Sheker. The petitioner, Alan Joseph A. Sheker, filed a contingent claim
for an agent's commission amounting to approximately P206,250.00 and sought
reimbursement of P275,000.00 for expenses incurred in negotiating the sale of certain
parcels of land belonging to the estate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City, Branch
6, admitted the holographic will of Alice O. Sheker to probate and issued an order for
creditors to file their claims against the estate. The executrix of the estate, Victoria S.
Medina, moved to dismiss the money claim on the grounds that the requisite docket fee
had not been paid, the petitioner failed to attach a certification against non-forum shopping,
and there was no written explanation for not filing and serving the claim personally. The
RTC dismissed the money claim without prejudice on January 15, 2003, and denied the
petitioner's motion for reconsideration on April 9, 2003. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a
petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC's dismissal of
his claim.
Issue:
1. Must a contingent claim filed in a probate proceeding contain a certification against
non-forum shopping, failing which such claim should be dismissed?
2. Must a contingent claim filed against an estate in a probate proceeding be dismissed
for failing to pay the docket fees at the time of its filing?
3. Must a contingent claim filed in a probate proceeding be dismissed because of its
failure to contain a written explanation on the service and filing by registered mail?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reversing and setting aside the RTC's
orders dated January 15, 2003, and April 9, 2003. The Court directed the RTC to give due
course and take appropriate action on the petitioner's money claim in accordance with
Rule 82 of the Rules of Court.
Ratio:
[Link] 1/2
9/6/24, 3:56 PM Sheker vs. Sheker
The Supreme Court held that the certification of non-forum shopping is required only for
complaints and other initiatory pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent money
claim against the estate is an initiatory pleading. The probate proceeding was initiated upon
the filing of the petition for allowance of the decedent's will, and a money claim against an
estate is more akin to a motion for creditors' claims to be recognized. Therefore, the
petitioner's contingent money claim did not require a certification against non-forum
shopping.
Regarding the issue of filing fees, the Court cited Pascual v. Court of Appeals, which held
that the trial court has jurisdiction to act on a money claim against an estate even without
the payment of separate docket fees. The filing fees shall constitute a lien on the judgment,
or the trial court may order the payment of such fees within a reasonable time. Thus, non-
payment of filing fees is not a ground for dismissing a money claim against the estate.
On the requirement of a written explanation for non-personal service, the Court referred to
Maceda v. De Guzman Vda. de Macatangay, which allows the court discretion to consider a
pleading as not filed if the rule is not complied with. The Court noted that the distance
between the petitioner's office in Makati City and the RTC in Iligan City made personal
service impracticable. Therefore, the failure to submit a written explanation was
considered superfluous, and the RTC should have exercised its discretion to not dismiss
the money claim in the interest of substantial justice.
The Court emphasized that the ruling spirit of probate law is the speedy settlement of
estates for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to the residue. The RTC should have
relaxed and liberally construed the procedural rule on the requirement of a written
explanation for non-personal service to achieve substantial justice.
[Link] 2/2
