MONTANER VS SHARIA

Facts:
Luisa Kho Montaer, a Roman Catholic, married Alejandro Montaer, Sr. at the
Immaculate
Conception Parish in Cubao, Quezon City. Alejandro died. Petitioners herein are their
three children.
Liling Disangcopan and her daughter, Almahleen, both Muslims, filed a "Complaint"
for the judicial
partition of properties before the Sharia District Court. They claim to be the first
family of Alejandro.
Petitioner children filed an Answer with a Motion to Dismiss becasue Discangcopan
failed to pay the
correct amount of docket fees. Petitioners point to Disangcopans petition which
contains an allegation
estimating the decedents estate as the basis for the conclusion that what private
respondents paid as
docket fees was insufficient.
Issue:
partition of

WON the proper docket fees were paid for Complaint for the judicial

properties.

Held:

Yes, only because the petitioner children failed to present the clerk of
courts assessment.
Filing the appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket
fees vest a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter. If the party filing the case paid less than
the correct amount for
the docket fees because that was the amount assessed by the clerk of court, the
responsibility of making
a deficiency assessment lies with the same clerk of court. In such a case, the lower
court concerned will

not automatically lose jurisdiction, because of a partys reliance on the clerk of

courts insufficient
assessment of the docket fees. As every citizen has the right to assume and trust
that a public officer
charged by law with certain duties knows his duties and performs them in
accordance with law, the party
filing the case cannot be penalized with the clerk of courts insufficient assessment.
However, the party
concerned will be required to pay the deficiency.
In the case at bar, petitioner children did not present the clerk of courts
assessment of the docket fees.
Moreover, the records do not include this assessment. There can be no
determination of whether
Disangcopan correctly paid the docket fees without the clerk of courts assessment.

ALAN SHEKER VS ESTATE OF ALICE SHEKER

Facts: The will of Alice Sheker was admitted by the court and thereafter all creditors
were
ordered to file their respective claims against the estate. On Oct. 7, 2002, a
contingent claim for
agent's commission in the total amount of P481,250.00 was filed by petitioner.
However, the executrix of the estate moved for the dismissal of the money claim on
the ground
that no docket fee was paid, no certification for non-forum shopping was attached,
and no
written explanation was made as to why there was no personal service of the claim.
The court
thereon dismissed the claim.

Issue: Whether or not the court erred in dismissing the money claim for failure to
pay the docket
fee, attach a cert. of non-forum shoping, and make a personal service.
Ruling: The court erred in strictly applying Sec. 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court
because such
calls also for practicabiliy for it to apply other than the absence of special
provisions.
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
of a
decedent is an initiatory pleading
On the issue of filing fees, the Court ruled in Pascual v. Court of Appeals, that the
trial court has
jurisdiction to act on a money claim (attorney's fees) against an estate for services
rendered by a
lawyer to the administratrix to assist her in fulfilling her duties to the estate even
without
payment of separate docket fees because the filing fees shall constitute a lien on
the judgment
pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, or the trial court may order
the payment of
such filing fees within a reasonable time.
on the issue of personal service, as in Musa v. Amor, a written explanation why
service was not
done personally might have been superfluous" because the distance from the
petitioner's
residence and the respondent court is very far.
Petition granted.
Comment: Yes, in this case the court was too blinded with its sense of duty to follow
to the rules

to the letters. The court should have relaxed and liberally construed the procedural
rule on the
requirement of a written explanation for non-personal service, in the interest of
substantial
justice. Because in the end, it would be the estate that would benefit upon being
given notice of a
money claim against it so it can be inspected and verified