Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gabin vs. Melliza DG

    Uploaded by

    Kimberly Ramos
    145 views1 page
    1) Gabin had a 30-year contract with Melliza to administer his haciendas in exchange for 350 cavans of palay per year, with compensation of 150 cavans per year for the remainder of the contract if dismissed without cause. 2) After Melliza's death, his executrix removed Gabin from administering the haciendas. Gabin filed a claim for 150 cavans of palay per year for the remaining 29 years. 3) The probate court denied the claim because it arose after Melliza's death and was not a monetary claim, but rather for palay, which fluctuates in value. The court order was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Tax2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Gabin had a 30-year contract with Melliza to administer his haciendas in exchange for 350 cavans of palay per year, with compensation of 150 cavans per year for the remainder of the contract if dismissed without cause. 2) After Melliza's death, his executrix removed Gabin from administering the haciendas. Gabin filed a claim for 150 cavans of palay per year for the remaining 29 years. 3) The probate court denied the claim because it arose after Melliza's death and was not a monetary claim, but rather for palay, which fluctuates in value. The court order was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    145 views1 page

    Gabin vs. Melliza DG

    Uploaded by

    Kimberly Ramos
    1) Gabin had a 30-year contract with Melliza to administer his haciendas in exchange for 350 cavans of palay per year, with compensation of 150 cavans per year for the remainder of the contract if dismissed without cause. 2) After Melliza's death, his executrix removed Gabin from administering the haciendas. Gabin filed a claim for 150 cavans of palay per year for the remaining 29 years. 3) The probate court denied the claim because it arose after Melliza's death and was not a monetary claim, but rather for palay, which fluctuates in value. The court order was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gabin vs.

    Melliza
    No. L-1849. October 25, 1949
    J. Ozaeta

    Facts:
    In his lifetime, Melliza contracted the services of Gabin to administer certain haciendas belonging to the former for
    a period of thirty years at a compensation of 350 cavans of palay per agricultural year with the stipulation that Gabin cannot
    be dismissed from the service without just and legal cause during the time she cared to serve within the said period of thirty
    years and in case of dismissal she shall have the right to be indemnified for the rest of the period at the rate of 150 cavans
    of palay for each agricultural year.

    After Melliza's death in 1995, his executrix took from Gabin the administration of said haciendas. Thereafter, Gabin
    filed a claim against the estate for the payment of 150 cavans of palay per agricultural year for twenty-nine years. The heirs
    however opposed the claim since: 1) the claim is not a claim for money; 2) the agreement was terminated at the death of
    the principal; 3) Melliza cannot, except by a will, dispose of the administration of his property; and 4) there was no
    consideration for the granting of such administration for 30yrs with remuneration.

    The probate court sustained the first ground of the opposition and denied the claim. Hence, this appeal.

    Issue:
    Whether or not appellant’s claim is one that is allowed in a testamentary proceedings.

    Ruling:
    The Rules provides that all persons having money claims against the decedent to file them in the office of the clerk
    of said court; likewise, another provision provides that all claims for money against the decedent arising from contract,
    express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses of the last
    sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice.
    "By money claims, is meant any claim for 'money, debt, or interest thereon,' according to section 21 of Rule 3 and section
    1 of Rule 88. Not all money claims may, however, be presented, but only those which are proper against the decedent, that
    is, claims upon a liability contracted by the decedent before his death. Accordingly, claims arising after his death cannot thus
    be presented, except funeral expenses."

    The Court finds no valid reason to reverse the order appealed from on the following grounds:

    1. he claim in question arose after the death of the decedent; and


    2. the claim is not for money, debt, or interest thereon but for 150 cavans of palay a year for
    29 agricultural years (one agricultural year having elapsed before the death of Raymundo
    Melliza). Even if it wanted to, the probate court could not determine in advance the value of
    the palay in money because the price of palay varies from year to year.

    The order appealed from is affirmed.

    You might also like