7/24/2019 cases rem

1/54

G.R. No. L-23445 June 23, 1966

REMEDIOS NUGUID,petitioner and appellant,

vs.

FELIX NUGUID and !" S!LONG! NUGUID,oppositors and appellees.

Custodio O. Partade for petitioner and appellant.

Beltran, Beltran and Beltran for oppositors and appellees.

S!N#$E", J.:

Rosario Nuguid, a resident of Quezon City, died on December 30, 1!",

single, #it$out descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. %urviving $er #ere

$er legitimate parents, &eli' Nuguid and (az %alonga Nuguid, and si' )!*

brot$ers and sisters, namely+ lfredo, &ederico, Remedios, Conrado, -ourdes

and lberto, all surnamed Nuguid.

n /ay 1, 1!3, petitioner Remedios Nuguid led in t$e Court of &irst

2nstance of Rizal a $olograp$ic #ill allegedly e'ecuted by Rosario Nuguid on

November 1, 141, some 11 years before $er demise. (etitioner prayed

t$at said #ill be admitted to probate and t$at letters of administration #it$

t$e #ill anne'ed be issued to $er.

n 5une "4, 1!3, &eli' Nuguid and (az %alonga Nuguid, concededly t$e

legitimate fat$er and mot$er of t$e deceased Rosario Nuguid, entered t$eiropposition to t$e probate of $er #ill. 6round t$erefor, inter alia, is t$at by t$e

institution of petitioner Remedios Nuguid as universal $eir of t$e deceased,

oppositors 7 #$o are compulsory $eirs of t$e deceased in t$e direct

ascending line 7 #ere illegally preterited and t$at in conse8uence t$e

institution is void.

n ugust ", 1!3, before a $earing #as $ad on t$e petition for probate

and ob9ection t$ereto, oppositors moved to dismiss on t$e ground of

absolute preterition.

n %eptember !, 1!3, petitioner registered $er opposition to t$e motion to

dismiss.1wph1.t

:$e court;s order of November , 1!3, $eld t$at

7/24/2019 cases rem

2/54

motion to reconsider $aving been t$#arted belo#, petitioner came to t$is

Court on appeal.

1. Rig$t at t$e outset, a procedural aspect $as engaged our attention. :$e

case is for t$e probate of a #ill. :$e court;s area of in8uiry is limited 7 to an

e'amination of, and resolution on, t$e extrinsicvalidity of t$e #ill. :$e due

e'ecution t$ereof, t$e testatri';s testamentary capacity, and t$e compliance

#it$ t$e re8uisites or solemnities by la# prescribed, are t$e 8uestions solely

to be presented, and to be acted upon, by t$e court. %aid court at t$is stage

of t$e proceedings 7 is not called upon to rule on t$e intrinsicvalidity or

e=cacy of t$e provisions of t$e #ill, t$e legality of any devise or legacy

t$erein.1

peculiar situation is $ere t$rust upon us. :$e parties s$unted aside t$e

8uestion of #$et$er or not t$e #ill s$ould be allo#ed probate. &or t$em, t$emeat of t$e case is t$e intrinsic validity of t$e #ill. Normally, t$is comes only

after t$e court $as declared t$at t$e #ill $as been duly aut$enticated.">ut

petitioner and oppositors, in t$e court belo# and $ere on appeal, travelled on

t$e issue of la#, to #it+ 2s t$e #ill intrinsically a nullity?

@e pause to reAect. 2f t$e case #ere to be remanded for probate of t$e #ill,

not$ing #ill be gained. n t$e contrary, t$is litigation #ill be protracted. nd

for aug$t t$at appears in t$e record, in t$e event of probate or if t$e court

re9ects t$e #ill, probability e'ists t$at t$e case #ill come up once again

before us on t$e same issue of t$e intrinsic validity or nullity of t$e #ill.Result+ #aste of time, eBort, e'pense, plus added an'iety. :$ese are t$e

practical considerations t$at induce us to a belief t$at #e mig$t as #ell meet

$eadon t$e issue of t$e validity of t$e provisions of t$e #ill in 8uestion.3

fter all, t$ere e'ists a 9usticiable controversy crying for solution.

". (etitioner;s sole assignment of error c$allenges t$e correctness of t$e

conclusion belo# t$at t$e #ill is a complete nullity. :$is e'acts from us a

study of t$e disputed #ill and t$e applicable statute.

Reproduced $ereunder is t$e #ill+

Nov. 1, 141

2, R%R2 N62D, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, $aving

amassed a certain amount of property, do $ereby give, devise, and be8ueat$

all of t$e property #$ic$ 2 may $ave #$en 2 die to my beloved sister

7/24/2019 cases rem

3/54

Remedios Nuguid, age 3E, residing #it$ me at 3> 2riga, Q.C. 2n #itness

#$ereof, 2 $ave signed my name t$is sevent$ day of November, nineteen

$undred and ftyone.

)%gd.* 2llegible

:F R%R2 N62D

:$e statute #e are called upon to apply in rticle 4E of t$e Civil Code

#$ic$, in part, provides+

R:. 4E. :$e preterition or omission of one, some, or all of t$e

compulsory $eirs in t$e direct line, #$et$er living at t$e time of t$e

e'ecution of t$e #ill or born after t$e deat$ of t$e testator, s$all annul

t$e institution of $eirG but t$e devises and legacies s$all be valid

insofar as t$ey are not ino=cious. ...

H'cept for inconse8uential variation in terms, t$e foregoing is a reproduction

of rticle 1E of t$e Civil Code of %pain of 1, #$ic$ is similarly $erein

copied, t$us 7

rt. 1E. :$e preterition of one or all of t$e forced $eirs in t$e direct

line, #$et$er living at t$e time of t$e e'ecution of t$e #ill or born after

t$e deat$ of t$e testator, s$all void t$e institution of $eirG but t$e

legacies and betterments

E

s$all be valid, in so far as t$ey are notino=cious. ...

compre$ensive understanding of t$e termpreteritionemployed in t$e la#

becomes a necessity. n t$is point /anresa comments+

-a pretericion consiste en omitar al $eredero en el testamento. no se

le nombra si8uiera o aun nombrandole como padre, $i9o, etc., no se le

instituya $eredero ni se le des$ereda e'presamente ni se le asigna

parte alguna de los bienes, resultando privado de un modo tacito de su

derec$o a legitima.

(ara 8ue e'ista pretericion, con arreglo al articulo 1E, basta 8ue en el

testamento omita el testador a uno cual8uiera de a8uellos a 8uienes

por su muerte corresponda la $erencia forzosa.

7/24/2019 cases rem

4/54

%e necesita, pues, a* Que la omision se reera a un $eredero forzoso.

b* Que la omision sea completaG 8ue el $eredero forzoso nada reciba

en el testamento.

2t may no# appear trite bat nonet$eless $elpful in giving us a clear

perspective of t$e problem before us, to $ave on $and a clearcut denition

of t$e #ord annul+

:o

7/24/2019 cases rem

5/54

articulo como especial en el caso 8ue le motiva rige con preferencia al

1. 10

:$e same vie# is e'pressed by %anc$ez Roman+ 7

-a consecuencia de la anulacion o nulidad de la institucion de $erederopor pretericion de uno, varios o todos los forzosos en linea recta, es la

apertura de la sucesion intestada total o parcial.%era total, cuando el

testador 8ue comete la pretericion, $ubiese dispuesto de todos los

bienes por titulo universal de $erencia en favor de los $erederos

instituidos, cuya institucion se anula, por8ue asi lo e'ige la generalidad

del precepto legal del art. 1E, al determinar, como efecto de la

pretericion, el de 8ue

7/24/2019 cases rem

6/54

interpretacion arbitraria, dentro del derec$o positivo, reputar como

legatario a un $eredero cuya institucion fuese anulada con prete'to de

8ue esto se acomodaba me9or a la voluntad del testador, pues aun

cuando asi fuese, sera esto razon para modicar la ley, pero no

autoriza a una interpretacion contraria a sus terminos y a los principios

8ue informan la testamentifaccion, pues no por8ue parezca me9or una

cosa en el terreno del Derec$o constituyente, $ay razon para

convereste 9uicio en regla de interpretacion, desvirtuando y anulando

por este procedimiento lo 8ue el legislador 8uiere establecer. 1"

3. @e s$ould not be led astray by t$e statement in rticle 4E t$at,

annullment not#it$standing,

7/24/2019 cases rem

7/54

disin$erited.< 1!Disin$eritance, in turn, etter stated yet, in

disin$eritance t$e nullity is li!itedto t$at portion of t$e estate of #$ic$ t$e

disin$erited $eirs $ave been illegally deprived. /anresa;s e'pressivelanguage, in commenting on t$e rig$ts of t$e preterited $eirs in t$e case of

preterition on t$e one $and and legal disin$eritance on t$e ot$er, runs t$us+

ut t$e t$eory is advanced t$at t$e be8uest made by universal title in

favor of t$e c$ildren by t$e second marriage s$ould be treated as

le#adoand !e'oraand, accordingly, it must not be entirely annulled

7/24/2019 cases rem

8/54

but merely reduced. :$is t$eory, if adopted, #ill result in a complete

abrogation of rticles 1E and 41 of t$e Civil Code. 2f every case of

institution of $eirs may be made to fall into t$e concept of legacies and

betterments reducing t$e be8uest accordingly, t$en t$e provisions of

rticles 1E and 41 regarding total or partial nullity of t$e institution,

#ould. be absolutely meaningless and #ill never $ave any application

at all. nd t$e remaining provisions contained in said article concerning

t$e reduction of ino=cious legacies or betterments #ould be a

surplusage because t$ey #ould be absorbed by rticle 1. :$us,

instead of construing, #e #ould be destroying integral provisions of t$e

Civil Code.

:$e destructive eBect of t$e t$eory t$us advanced is due mainly to a

failure to distinguis$ institution of $eirs from legacies and betterments,

and a general from a special provision. @it$ reference to article 1E,#$ic$ is t$e only provision material to t$e disposition of t$is case, it

must be observed t$at t$e institution of $eirs is t$erein dealt #it$ as a

t$ing separate and distinct from legacies or betterments. nd t$ey are

separate and distinct not only because t$ey are distinctly and

separately treated in said article but because t$ey are in t$emselves

diBerent. 2nstitution of $eirs is a be8uest by universal title of property

t$at is undetermined. -egacy refers to specic property be8ueat$ed by

a particular or special title. ... >ut again an institution of $eirs cannot

be taIen as a legacy. "4

:$e disputed order, #e observe, declares t$e #ill in 8uestion

7/24/2019 cases rem

9/54

!R!S, J.:

:$is is a petition for revie# on certiorari of t$e decision of respondent.

Court of ppeals in C6.R. %( No. 04EE promulgated on ugust 30, 14)Rollo, p. 10* ordering t$e dismissal of t$e petition in %pecial (roceedings

No, 41 CH> and its Resolution issued on ctober "3, 14 )Rollo, p. "*

denying respondents; )petitioners $erein* motion for reconsideration.

:$e dispositive portion of t$e 8uestioned decision reads as follo#s+

@LHRH&RH, t$e petition is $ereby granted and respondent

Regional :rial Court of t$e %event$ 5udicial Region, >ranc$ M222

)Cebu City*, is $ereby ordered to dismiss t$e petition in %pecial

(roceedings No. 41 CH> No special pronouncement is made as

to costs.

:$e antecedents of t$e case, based on t$e summary of t$e 2ntermediate

ppellate Court, no# Court of ppeals, )Rollo, pp. 1010* are as follo#s+

n /ay ", 1E petitioner Constantino cain led on t$e Regional :rial

Court of Cebu City >ranc$ M222, a petition for t$e probate of t$e #ill of t$e late

Nemesio cain and for t$e issuance to t$e same petitioner of letters

testamentary, docIeted as %pecial (roceedings No. 41 CH> )Rollo, p. "*,on t$e premise t$at Nemesio cain died leaving a #ill in #$ic$ petitioner and

$is brot$ers ntonio, &lores and 5ose and $is sisters nita, Concepcion,

Quirina and -aura #ere instituted as $eirs. :$e #ill allegedly e'ecuted by

Nemesio cain on &ebruary 1, 1!0 #as #ritten in >isaya )Rollo, p. "* #it$

a translation in Hnglis$ )Rollo, p. 31* submi;tted by petitioner #it$out

ob9ection raised by private respondents. :$e #ill contained provisions on

burial rites, payment of debts, and t$e appointment of a certain tty. 2gnacio

6. Jillagonzalo as t$e e'ecutor of t$e testament. n t$e disposition of t$e

testator;s property, t$e #ill provided+

:L2RD+ ll my s$ares t$at 2 may receive from our properties.

$ouse, lands and money #$ic$ 2 earned 9ointly #it$ my #ife Rosa

Diongson s$all all be given by me to my brot$er %H6ND C2N

&ilipino, #ido#er, of legal age and presently residing at 34C

%anciangIo %treet, Cebu City. 2n case my brot$er %egundo cain

predeceased me, all t$e money properties, lands, $ouses t$ere

7/24/2019 cases rem

10/54

in >antayan and $ere in Cebu City #$ic$ constitute my s$are

s$all be given to me to $is c$ildren, namely+ nita, Constantino,

Concepcion, Quirina, laura, &lores, ntonio and 5ose, all

surnamed cain.

bviously, %egundo predeceased Nemesio. :$us it is t$e c$ildren of

%egundo #$o are claiming to be $eirs, #it$ Constantino as t$e petitioner in

%pecial (roceedings No. 41 CH>

fter t$e petition #as set for $earing in t$e lo#er court on 5une "4, 1E t$e

oppositors )respondents $erein Jirginia . &ernandez, a legally adopted

daug$ter of tile deceased and t$e latter;s #ido# Rosa Diongson Jda. de

cain led a motion to dismiss on t$e follo#ing grounds for t$e petitioner $as

no legal capacity to institute t$ese proceedingsG )"* $e is merely a universal

$eir and )3* t$e #ido# and t$e adopted daug$ter $ave been pretirited.)Rollo, p. 14*. %aid motion #as denied by t$e trial 9udge.

fter t$e denial of t$eir subse8uent motion for reconsideration in t$e lo#er

court, respondents led #it$ t$e %upreme Court a petition for certiorari and

pro$ibition #it$ preliminary in9unction #$ic$ #as subse8uently referred to

t$e 2ntermediate ppellate Court by Resolution of t$e Court dated /arc$ 11,

14 )/emorandum for (etitioner, p. 3G Rollo, p. 14*.

Respondent 2ntermediate ppellate Court granted private respondents;

petition and ordered t$e trial court to dismiss t$e petition for t$e probate oft$e #ill of Nemesio cain in %pecial (roceedings No. 41 CH>

Lis motion for reconsideration $aving been denied, petitioner led t$is

present petition for t$e revie# of respondent Court;s decision on December

1, 14 )Rollo, p. !*. Respondents; Comment #as led on 5une !, 1!

)Rollo, p. 1E!*.

n ugust 11, 1! t$e Court resolved to give due course to t$e petition

)Rollo, p. 143*. Respondents; /emorandum #as led on %eptember "", 1!

)Rollo, p. 14*G t$e /emorandum for petitioner #as led on %eptember ",1! )Rollo, p. 1*.

(etitioner raises t$e follo#ing issues )/emorandum for petitioner, p. E*+

7/24/2019 cases rem

11/54

)* :$e petition led in C6.R. No. 04EE for certiorari and

pro$ibition #it$ preliminary in9unction is not t$e proper remedy

under t$e premisesG

)>* :$e aut$ority of t$e probate courts is limited only to in8uiring

into t$e e'trinsic validity of t$e #ill soug$t to be probated and it

cannot pass upon t$e intrinsic validity t$ereof before it is

admitted to probateG

)C* :$e #ill of Nemesio cain is valid and must t$erefore, be

admitted to probate. :$e preterition mentioned in rticle 4E of

t$e Ne# Civil Code refers to preterition of for probate

of t$e #ill of Nemesio cain and

)6* rticle 4E of t$e Ne# Civil Code is a bill of attainder. 2t is

t$erefore unconstitutional and ineBectual.

:$e pivotal issue in t$is case is #$et$er or not private respondents $ave

been pretirited.

rticle 4E of t$e Civil Code provides+

rt. 4E. :$e preterition or omission of one, some, or all of t$e

compulsory $eirs in t$e direct line, #$et$er living at t$e time of

t$e e'ecution of t$e #ill or born after t$e deat$ of t$e testator,

7/24/2019 cases rem

12/54

s$all annul t$e institution of $eirG but t$e devisees and legacies

s$all be valid insofar as t$ey are notG ino=cious.

2f t$e omitted compulsory $eirs s$ould die before t$e testator,

t$e institution s$all $e eBectual, #it$out pre9udice to t$e rig$t of

representation.

(reterition consists in t$e omission in t$e testator;s #ill of t$e forced $eirs or

anyone of t$em eit$er because t$ey are not mentioned t$erein, or, t$oug$

mentioned, t$ey are neit$er instituted as $eirs nor are e'pressly disin$erited

)Nuguid v. Nuguid, 1 %CR E40 1!!OG /aninang v. Court of ppeals, 11E

%CR E 1"O*. 2nsofar as t$e #ido# is concerned, rticle 4E of t$e Civil

Code may not apply as s$e does not ascend or descend from t$e testator,

alt$oug$ s$e is a compulsory $eir. %tated ot$er#ise, even if t$e surviving

spouse is a compulsory $eir, t$ere is no preterition even if s$e is omittedfrom t$e in$eritance, for s$e is not in t$e direct line. )rt. 4E, Civil code*

$o#ever, t$e same t$ing cannot be said of t$e ot$er respondent Jirginia .

&ernandez, #$ose legal adoption by t$e testator $as not been 8uestioned by

petitioner )./emorandum for t$e (etitioner, pp. *. nder rticle 3 of (.D.

No. !03, Ino#n as t$e C$ild and Pout$ @elfare Code, adoption gives to t$e

adopted person t$e same rig$ts and duties as if $e #ere a legitimate c$ild of

t$e adopter and maIes t$e adopted person a legal $eir of t$e adopter. 2t

cannot be denied t$at s$e $as totally omitted and preterited in t$e #ill of t$e

testator and t$at bot$ adopted c$ild and t$e #ido# #ere deprived of at least

t$eir legitime. Neit$er can it be denied t$at t$ey #ere not e'presslydisin$erited. Lence, t$is is a clear case of preterition of t$e legally adopted

c$ild.

(retention annuls t$e institution of an $eir and annulment t$ro#s open to

intestate succession t$e entire in$eritance including

7/24/2019 cases rem

13/54

not$ing at all #as #ritten. Carefully #orded and in clear terms, rticle 4E of

t$e Civil Code oBers no lee#ay for inferential interpretation )Nuguid v.

Nuguid*, supra. No legacies nor devises $aving been provided in t$e #ill t$e

#$ole property of t$e deceased $as been left by universal title to petitioner

and $is brot$ers and sisters. :$e eBect of annulling t$e acang v. Court of ppeals,

1"4 %CR 13 13O*.

7/24/2019 cases rem

14/54

%pecial (roceedings No. 41 CH> is for t$e probate of a #ill. s stated by

respondent Court, t$e general rule is t$at t$e probate court;s aut$ority is

limited only to t$e e'trinsic validity of t$e #ill, t$e due e'ecution t$ereof, t$e

testator;s testamentary capacity and t$e compliance #it$ t$e re8uisites or

solemnities prescribed by la#. :$e intrinsic validity of t$e #ill normally

comes only after t$e Court $as declared t$at t$e #ill $as been duly

aut$enticated. %aid court at t$is stage of t$e proceedings is not called upon

to rule on t$e intrinsic validity or e=cacy of t$e provisions of t$e #ill )Nuguid

v. Nuguid, 1 %CR EE 1!!OG %umilang v. Ramagosa, supraG /aninang v.

Court of ppeals, 11E %CR E 1"OG Cayetano v. -eonides, 1" %CR 4""

1EOG and Nepomuceno v. Court of ppeals, 13 %CR "0! 14O*.

:$e rule, $o#ever, is not inAe'ible and absolute. nder e'ceptional

circumstances, t$e probate court is not po#erless to do #$at t$e situation

constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of t$e #ill )Nepomucenov. Court of ppeals, supra*. 2n Nuguid v. Nuguid t$e oppositors to t$e probate

moved to dismiss on t$e ground of absolute preteriton :$e probate court

acting on t$e motion $eld t$at t$e #ill in 8uestion #as a complete nullity and

dismissed t$e petition #it$out costs. n appeal t$e %upreme Court up$eld

t$e decision of t$e probate court, induced by practical considerations. :$e

Court said+

@e pause to reAect. 2f t$e case #ere to be remanded for probate

of t$e #ill, not$ing #ill be gained. n t$e contrary, t$is litigation

#ill be protracted. nd for aug$t t$at appears in t$e record, int$e event of probate or if t$e court re9ects t$e #ill, probability

e'ists t$at t$e case #ill come up once again before us on t$e

same issue of t$e intrinsic validity or nullity of t$e #ill. Result+

#aste of time, eBort, e'pense, plus added an'iety. :$ese are t$e

practical considerations t$at induce us to a belief t$at #e mig$t

as #ell meet $eadon t$e issue of t$e validity of t$e provisions of

t$e #ill in 8uestion. fter all t$ere e'ists a 9usticiable controversy

crying for solution.

2n +a#ui!si! $. indaya# )! %CR E 1!"O* t$e motion to dismiss t$e

petition by t$e surviving spouse #as grounded on petitioner;s lacI of legal

capacity to institute t$e proceedings #$ic$ #as fully substantiated by t$e

evidence during t$e $earing $eld in connection #it$ said motion. :$e Court

up$eld t$e probate court;s order of dismissal.

7/24/2019 cases rem

15/54

2n Cayetano $. eonides, supra one of t$e issues raised in t$e motion to

dismiss t$e petition deals #it$ t$e validity of t$e provisions of t$e #ill.

Respondent 5udge allo#ed t$e probate of t$e #ill. :$e Court $eld t$at as on

its face t$e #ill appeared to $ave preterited t$e petitioner t$e respondent

9udge s$ould $ave denied its probate outrig$t. @$ere circumstances demand

t$at intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions be passed upon even before

t$e e'trinsic validity of t$e #ill is resolved, t$e probate court s$ould meet t$e

issue. )Nepomuceno v. Court of ppeals, supraG Nuguid v. Nuguid, supra*.

2n t$e instant case private respondents led a motion to dismiss t$e petition

in %p. (roceedings No. 41 CH> of t$e Regional :rial Court of Cebu on t$e

follo#ing grounds+ )1* petitioner $as no legal capacity to institute t$e

proceedingsG )"* $e is merely a universal $eirG and )3* t$e #ido# and t$e

adopted daug$ter $ave been preterited )Rollo, p. 14*. 2t #as denied by t$e

trial court in an order dated 5anuary "1, 14 for t$e reason t$at

7/24/2019 cases rem

16/54

entertained, particularly #$ere appeal #ould not aBord speedy and ade8uate

relief. )/aninang Court of ppeals, supra*.

(RH/2%H% CN%2DHRHD, t$e petition is $ereby DHN2HD for lacI of merit and

t$e 8uestioned decision of respondent Court of ppeals promulgated on

ugust 30, 14 and its Resolution dated ctober "3, 14 are $ereby

&&2R/HD.

% RDHRHD.

G.R. No. L-23135 De'e7)e* 26, 196%

ES!E ES!E OF $IL!RION R!M!GOS!. M!RI!NO SUMIL!NG,

petitionerappellee,

vs.

S!URNIN! R!M!GOS!, S!NI!GO R!M!GOS!, ENRI8UE !ELL!,

LI#ERI! !ELL! and !NDRE! R!!LO,oppositorsappellants.

-atchalian and +ison and . /. Bardelosa, r. for petitioner0appellee.

ose . es$arro r. for oppositors0appellants

M!:!LIN!L, J.:

n 5uly 4, 1!0 /ariano %umilang led in t$e Court of &irst 2nstance of

Quezon a petition for t$e probate of a document alleged to be t$e last #ill

and testament of Lilarion Ramagosa, #$o died on December 1, 14. %aid

document, #ritten in :agalog and dated &ebruary "!, 1E, institutes

petitioner as sole $eir of t$e testator.

:$e petition for probate #as opposed by t#o )"* of oppositors 7 appellants

$erein 7 #$o 8uestioned t$e due e'ecution of t$e document, claiming t$at it

#as made under duress and #as not really intended by t$e deceased to be

$is last #ill and testament. side from merely opposing t$e petition for

probate, t$e rst set of oppositors 7 %aturnino and %antiago Ramagosa 7

also claimed t$at t$ey, instead of petitioner, #ere entitled to in$erit t$eestate of t$e deceased. :$e ot$er oppositors representing t$emselves simply

as ne't of Iin, appropriately prayed only for t$e disallo#ance of t$e #ill.

t t$e $earings of t$e petition petitioner adduced $is evidence, and t$en

rested $is case on &ebruary 1!, 1!1. Reception of oppositors; evidence #as

set for 5uly 1E, 1!1. Lo#ever, on 5uly 3, 1!1 oppositors moved for t$e

7/24/2019 cases rem

17/54

dismissal of t$e petition for probate mainly on t$e ground t$at

7/24/2019 cases rem

18/54

#ill or t$e legality of any devise or legacy is premature. )Nuguid vs. Nuguid,

6.R. No. -"3EE4, 5une "3, 1!!*.

:o establis$ conclusively as against everyone and once for all, t$e facts

t$at a #ill #as e'ecuted #it$ t$e formalities re8uired by la# and t$at

t$e testator #as in a condition to maIe a #ill, is t$e only purpose of

t$e proceedings . . . for t$e probate of a #ill. :$e 9udgment in suc$

proceedings determines and can determine not$ing more. )lemany, et

al. vs. C&2 of /anila, 3 ($il. E"E*.

ppositors #ould #ant t$e court a )uoto dismiss petition for probate on t$e

ground t$at t$e testator $ad impliedly revoIed $is #ill by selling, prior to $is

deat$, t$e lands disposed of t$erein.

:rue or not, t$e alleged sale is no ground for t$e dismissal of t$e petition for

probate. (robate is one t$ing t$e validity of t$e testamentary provisions is

anot$er.itc0alf:$e rst decides t$e e'ecution of t$e document and t$e

testamentary capacity of t$e testatorG t$e second relates to descent and

distribution.

:$e alleged revocation implied from t$e e'ecution of t$e deeds of

conveyance in favor of t$e testamentary $eir is plainly irrelevant to

and separate from t$e 8uestion of #$et$er t$e testament #as duly

e'ecuted. &or one, if t$e #ill is not entitled to probate, or its probate is

denied, all 8uestions of revocation become superAuous+ in la#, t$ere isno suc$ #ill and $ence t$ere #ould be not$ing to revoIe. :$en, again,

t$e revocation invoIed by t$e oppositorsappellants is not an e'press

one, but merely implied from subse8uent acts of t$e testatri' allegedly

evidencing an abandonment of t$e original intention to be8ueat$ or

devise t$e properties concerned. s suc$, t$e revocation #ould not

aBect t$e #ill itself, but merely t$e particular devise or legacy. itc0alf

)&ernandez, et al. vs. Dimagiba, -"3!3 and Reyes, et al. vs.

Dimagiba, -"3!!", ctober 1", 1!.*

2n t$eir brief, oppositors do not taIe issue #it$ t$e court a )uo2s nding t$at

t$ey

7/24/2019 cases rem

19/54

2t is a #ellsettled rule t$at in order t$at a person may be allo#ed to

intervene in a probate proceeding $e must $ave an interest in t$e

estate, or in t$e #ill, or in t$e property to be aBected by it eit$er as

e'ecutor or as a claimant of t$e estate )Ngo :$e Lua vs. C$ung iat

Lua, et al., -101, %eptember 30, 1!3*G and an interested party $as

been dened as one #$o #ould be beneted by t$e estate suc$ as an

$eir or one #$o $as a claim against t$e estate liIe a creditor. ):eotico

vs. Del Jal, etc., 6.R. No. - 143, /arc$ "!, 1!4.*

:$e reason for t$e rule e'cluding strangers from contesting t$e #ill, is

not t$at t$ereby t$e court may be prevented from learning facts #$ic$

#ould 9ustify or necessitate a denial of probate, but rat$er t$at t$e

courts and t$e litigants s$ould not be molested by t$e intervention in

t$e proceedings of persons #it$ no interest in t$e estate #$ic$ #ould

entitle t$em to be $eard #it$ relation t$ereto. )(aras vs. Narciso, 34($il. "EE.*

%ometime after t$is case #as elevated to t$is Court appellee moved to

dismiss t$e appeal on t$e ground t$at t$e order appealed from is

interlocutory. @e deferred action on t$e motion until after t$e brief of bot$

parties $ad been led. :$e motion, alt$oug$ no# practically academic in

vie# of our resolution of t$e main issue involved, must be denied, since t$e

order of t$e lo#er court striIing out appellants; opposition to t$e probate of

t$e #ill on t$e ground t$at t$ey $ave no personality to intervene in t$e case,

#as nal and t$erefore appealable order insofar as t$ey #ere concerned.

:$e order appealed from is $ereby a=rmed, #it$ costs against oppositors

appellants.

G.R. No. L-54919 Ma; 3&, 19+4

OLL< #!

*an' XXXIII, #ou*( o> F/*( In(an'e o> Man/a and NENI!

#!MOS !GUI!, respondents.

r!elo P. -u%!an for petitioner.

/r!ando 3. -on%ales for pri$ate respondent.

7/24/2019 cases rem

20/54

GUIERRE", JR., J.:

:$is is a petition for revie# on certiorari, seeIing to annul t$e order of t$e

respondent 9udge of t$e Court of &irst 2nstance of /anila, >ranc$ MMMJ222,#$ic$ admitted to and allo#ed t$e probate of t$e last #ill and testament of

doracion C. Campos, after an e'parte presentation of evidence by $erein

private respondent.

n 5anuary 31, 1, doracion C. Campos died, leaving $er fat$er,

petitioner Lermogenes Campos and $er sisters, private respondent Nenita C.

(aguia, Remedios C. -opez and /arieta C. /edina as t$e surviving $eirs. s

Lermogenes Campos #as t$e only compulsory $eir, $e e'ecuted an =davit

of d9udication under Rule E, %ection 2 of t$e Rules of Court #$ereby $e

ad9udicated unto $imself t$e o#ners$ip of t$e entire estate of t$e deceased

doracion Campos.

Hleven mont$s after, on November "4, 1, Nenita C. (aguia led a petition

for t$e reprobate of a #ill of t$e deceased, doracion Campos, #$ic$ #as

allegedly e'ecuted in t$e nited %tates and for $er appointment as

administratri' of t$e estate of t$e deceased testatri'.

2n $er petition, Nenita alleged t$at t$e testatri' #as an merican citizen at

t$e time of $er deat$ and #as a permanent resident of E!33 Ditman %treet,($iladelp$ia, (ennsylvania, .%..G t$at t$e testatri' died in /anila on

5anuary 31, 1 #$ile temporarily residing #it$ $er sister at "1! -everiza,

/alate, /anilaG t$at during $er lifetime, t$e testatri' made $er last #ig and

testament on 5uly 10, 14, according to t$e la#s of (ennsylvania, .%..,

nominating @ilfredo >arzaga of Ne# 5ersey as e'ecutorG t$at after t$e

testatri' deat$, $er last #ill and testament #as presented, probated,

allo#ed, and registered #it$ t$e Registry of @ins at t$e County of

($iladelp$ia, .%.., t$at Clement -. /c-aug$lin, t$e administrator #$o #as

appointed after Dr. >arzaga $ad declined and #aived $is appointment as

e'ecutor in favor of t$e former, is also a resident of ($iladelp$ia, .%.., and

t$at t$erefore, t$ere is an urgent need for t$e appointment of an

administratri' to administer and eventually distribute t$e properties of t$e

estate located in t$e ($ilippines.

n 5anuary 11, 1, an opposition to t$e reprobate of t$e #ill #as led by

$erein petitioner alleging among ot$er t$ings, t$at $e $as every reason to

7/24/2019 cases rem

21/54

believe t$at t$e #ill in 8uestion is a forgeryG t$at t$e intrinsic provisions of

t$e #ill are null and voidG and t$at even if pertinent merican la#s on

intrinsic provisions are invoIed, t$e same could not apply inasmuc$ as t$ey

#ould #orI in9ustice and in9ury to $im.

n December 1, 1, $o#ever, t$e petitioner t$roug$ $is counsel, tty.

&ranco -oyola, led a /otion to Dismiss pposition )@it$ @aiver of Rig$ts or

2nterests* stating t$at $e

7/24/2019 cases rem

22/54

dministratri' upon $er ling of a bond in t$e amount of

(4,000.00 conditioned under t$e provisions of %ection 2, Rule 1

of t$e Rules of Court.

not$er manifestation #as led by t$e petitioner on pril 1E, 1,

conrming t$e #it$dra#al of $is opposition, acIno#ledging t$e same to be

$is voluntary act and deed.

n /ay "4, 1, Lermogenes Campos led a petition for relief, praying t$at

t$e order allo#ing t$e #ill be set aside on t$e ground t$at t$e #it$dra#al of

$is opposition to t$e same #as secured t$roug$ fraudulent means. ccording

to $im, t$e

7/24/2019 cases rem

23/54

/ean#$ile, on 5une !,1", petitioner Lermogenes Campos died and left a

#ill, #$ic$, incidentally $as been 8uestioned by t$e respondent, $is c$ildren

and forced $eirs as, on its face, patently null and void, and a fabrication,

appointing (olly Cayetano as t$e e'ecutri' of $is last #ill and testament.

Cayetano, t$erefore, led a motion to substitute $erself as petitioner in t$e

instant case #$ic$ #as granted by t$e court on %eptember 13, 1".

motion to dismiss t$e petition on t$e ground t$at t$e rig$ts of t$e

petitioner Lermogenes Campos merged upon $is deat$ #it$ t$e rig$ts of t$e

respondent and $er sisters, only remaining c$ildren and forced $eirs #as

denied on %eptember 1", 13.

(etitioner Cayetano persists #it$ t$e allegations t$at t$e respondent 9udge

acted #it$out or in e'cess of $is 9urisdiction #$en+

1* Le ruled t$e petitioner lost $is standing in court deprived t$e

Rig$t to Notice )sic* upon t$e ling of t$e /otion to Dismiss

opposition #it$ #aiver of rig$ts or interests against t$e estate of

deceased doracion C. Campos, t$us, paving t$e #ay for t$e

$earing ex0parteof t$e petition for t$e probate of decedent #ill.

"* Le ruled t$at petitioner can #aive, renounce or repudiate )not

made in a public or aut$enticated instrument*, or by #ay of a

petition presented to t$e court but by #ay of a motion presented

prior to an order for t$e distribution of t$e estatet$e la#especially providing t$at repudiation of an in$eritance must be

presented, #it$in 30 days after it $as issued an order for t$e

distribution of t$e estate in accordance #it$ t$e rules of Court.

3* Le ruled t$at t$e rig$t of a forced $eir to $is legitime can be

divested by a decree admitting a #ill to probate in #$ic$ no

provision is made for t$e forced $eir in complete disregard of

-a# of %uccession

E* Le denied petitioner;s petition for Relief on t$e ground t$at noevidence #as adduced to support t$e (etition for Relief #$en no

Notice nor $earing #as set to aBord petitioner to prove t$e merit

of $is petition 7 a denial of t$e due process and a grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lacI of 9urisdiction.

7/24/2019 cases rem

24/54

4* Le ac8uired no 9urisdiction over t$e testate case, t$e fact t$at

t$e :estator at t$e time of deat$ #as a usual resident of

DasmariKas, Cavite, conse8uently Cavite Court of &irst 2nstance

$as e'clusive 9urisdiction over t$e case )De >or9a vs. :an, 6.R.

No. -", 5uly 144*.

:$e rst t#o issues raised by t$e petitioner are anc$ored on t$e allegation

t$at t$e respondent 9udge acted #it$ grave abuse of discretion #$en $e

allo#ed t$e #it$dra#al of t$e petitioner;s opposition to t$e reprobate of t$e

#ill.

@e nd no grave abuse of discretion on t$e part of t$e respondent 9udge. No

proof #as adduced to support petitioner;s contention t$at t$e motion to

#it$dra# #as secured t$roug$ fraudulent means and t$at tty. &ranco -oyola

#as not $is counsel of record. :$e records s$o# t$at after t$e ring of t$econtested motion, t$e petitioner at a later date, led a manifestation #$erein

$e conrmed t$at t$e /otion to Dismiss pposition #as $is voluntary act and

deed. /oreover, at t$e time t$e motion #as led, t$e petitioner;s former

counsel, tty. 5ose (. -agrosa $ad long #it$dra#n from t$e case and $ad

been substituted by tty. &ranco -oyola #$o in turn led t$e motion. :$e

present petitioner cannot, t$erefore, maintain t$at t$e old man;s attorney of

record #as tty. -agrosa at t$e time of ling t$e motion. %ince t$e

#it$dra#al #as in order, t$e respondent 9udge acted correctly in $earing t$e

probate of t$e #ill ex0parte,t$ere being no ot$er opposition to t$e same.

:$e t$ird issue raised deals #it$ t$e validity of t$e provisions of t$e #ill. s a

general rule, t$e probate court;s aut$ority is limited only to t$e e'trinsic

validity of t$e #ill, t$e due e'ecution t$ereof, t$e testatri';s testamentary

capacity and t$e compliance #it$ t$e re8uisites or solemnities prescribed by

la#. :$e intrinsic validity of t$e #ill normally comes only after t$e court $as

declared t$at t$e #ill $as been duly aut$enticated. Lo#ever, #$ere practical

considerations demand t$at t$e intrinsic validity of t$e #ill be passed upon,

even before it is probated, t$e court s$ould meet t$e issue. )/aninang vs.

Court of ppeals, 11E %CR E*.

2n t$e case at bar, t$e petitioner maintains t$at since t$e respondent 9udge

allo#ed t$e reprobate of doracion;s #ill, Lermogenes C. Campos #as

divested of $is legitime #$ic$ #as reserved by t$e la# for $im.

:$is contention is #it$out merit.

7/24/2019 cases rem

25/54

lt$oug$ on its face, t$e #ill appeared to $ave preterited t$e petitioner and

t$us, t$e respondent 9udge s$ould $ave denied its reprobate outrig$t, t$e

private respondents $ave su=ciently establis$ed t$at doracion #as, at t$e

time of $er deat$, an merican citizen and a permanent resident of

($iladelp$ia, (ennsylvania, .%.. :$erefore, under rticle 1! par. )"* and

103 of t$e Civil Code #$ic$ respectively provide+

rt. 1! par. )"*.

''' ''' '''

Lo#ever, intestate and testamentary successions, bot$ #it$

respect to t$e order of succession and to t$e amount of

successional rig$ts and to t$e intrinsic validity of testamentary

provisions, s$all be regulated by t$e national la# of t$e person

#$ose succession is under consideration, #$atever may be t$e

nature of t$e property and regardless of t$e country #$erein said

property may be found.

rt. 103.

Capacity to succeed is governed by t$e la# of t$e nation of t$e

decedent.

t$e la# #$ic$ governs doracion Campo;s #ill is t$e la# of (ennsylvania,.%.., #$ic$ is t$e national la# of t$e decedent. lt$oug$ t$e parties admit

t$at t$e (ennsylvania la# does not provide for legitimes and t$at all t$e

estate may be given a#ay by t$e testatri' to a complete stranger, t$e

petitioner argues t$at suc$ la# s$ould not apply because it #ould be

contrary to t$e sound and establis$ed public policy and #ould run counter to

t$e specic provisions of ($ilippine -a#.

2t is a settled rule t$at as regards t$e intrinsic validity of t$e provisions of t$e

#ill, as provided for by rticle 1!)"* and 103 of t$e Civil Code, t$e national

la# of t$e decedent must apply. :$is #as s8uarely applied in t$e case ofBellis $. Bellis)"0 %CR 34* #$erein #e ruled+

2t is t$erefore evident t$at #$atever public policy or good

customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress

$as not intended to e'tend t$e same to t$e succession of foreign

nationals. &or it $as specically c$osen to leave, inter alia, t$e

7/24/2019 cases rem

26/54

amount of successional rig$ts, to t$e decedent;s national la#.

%pecic provisions must prevail over general ones.

''' ''' '''

:$e parties admit t$at t$e decedent, mos 6. >ellis, #as acitizen of t$e %tate of :e'as, .%.., and under t$e la# of :e'as,

t$ere are no forced $eirs or legitimes. ccordingly, since t$e

intrinsic validity of t$e provision of t$e #ill and t$e amount of

successional rig$ts are to be determined under :e'as la#, t$e

($ilippine -a# on legitimes cannot be applied to t$e testacy of

mos 6. >ellis.

s regards t$e alleged absence of notice of $earing for t$e petition for relief,

t$e records #ig bear t$e fact t$at #$at #as repeatedly sc$eduled for $earing

on separate dates until 5une 1, 10 #as t$e petitioner;s petition for relief

and not $is motion to vacate t$e order of 5anuary 10, 1. :$ere is no

reason #$y t$e petitioner s$ould $ave been led to believe ot$er#ise. :$e

court even admonis$ed t$e petitioner;s failing to adduce evidence #$en $is

petition for relief #as repeatedly set for $earing. :$ere #as no denial of due

process. :$e fact t$at $e re8uested

7/24/2019 cases rem

27/54

location of $is estate, s$all not be contested in a suit or

proceeding, e'cept in an appeal from t$at court, in t$e original

case, or #$en t$e #ant of 9urisdiction appears on t$e record.

:$erefore, t$e settlement of t$e estate of doracion Campos #as correctly

led #it$ t$e Court of &irst 2nstance of /anila #$ere s$e $ad an estate since

it #as alleged and proven t$at doracion at t$e time of $er deat$ #as a

citizen and permanent resident of (ennsylvania, nited %tates of merica

and not a 2N6,.,

Chairperson,

CR(2,

versus CR(2 /R-H%,

:2N6, andJH-%C, 5R.,.

-2J2 %HN6C (%C- (romulgated+

and :LH LNR>-H CR:

7/24/2019 cases rem

28/54

& ((H-%, /ay ", "00!

Respondents.

''

D E # I S I O N

:2N6,.+

(etitioner, a professional la# partners$ip, brings fort$ t$is (etition forRevie# assailing t$e Decision11O of t$e Court of ppeals dated "" December

14. :$e appellate court $ad a=rmed t#o orders promulgated by t$e

/alabon Regional :rial Court )R:C*, >ranc$ " )(robate Court*, in %p. (roc. No.

13!/N, entitled 2n t$e /atter of :estate Hstate of Doa dela (ascual, Dr.

livia %. (ascual, H'ecutri'.

:$e case actually centers on t#o estate proceedings, t$at of Doa dela

(ascual )Doa dela* and t$e ot$er, $er $usband Don ndres (ascuals )Don

ndres*, #$o predeceased $er. Don ndres died intestate, #$ile Doa dela

left be$ind a last #ill and testament. :$e dispute over t$e intestate estate of

Don ndres $as spa#ned at least t#o cases already settled by t$is Court.""O

n 1 December 13, an intestate proceeding for t$e settlement of

t$e estate of Don ndres #as commenced by $is #ido# Doa dela before

1

"

7/24/2019 cases rem

29/54

t$e t$en Court of &irst 2nstance, no# Regional :rial Court of (asig, >ranc$ "3

)2ntestate Court*, docIeted as %p. (roc. No. 44E. part from $is #ife, #$o

bore $im no c$ildren, Don ndres #as survived by several nep$e#s and

nieces from $is fullblood and $alfblood brot$ers.33O :$is proceeding proved

to be t$e source of many controversies, o#ing to t$e attempts of siblings

livia and Lermes (ascual, acIno#ledged natural c$ildren of Don ndress

brot$er, Hligio, to be recognized as $eirs of Don ndres. livia and Lermes

(ascual procured t$e initial support of Doa dela to t$eir claims. Lo#ever,

on 1! ctober 14, t$e ot$er $eirs of Don ndres entered into a

Compromise greement over t$e ob9ections of livia and Lermes (ascual,

#$ereby t$reefourt$s )3FE* of t$e estate #ould go to Doa dela and one

fourt$ )1FE* to t$e ot$er $eirs of Don ndres, #it$out pre9udice to t$e nal

determination by t$e court or anot$er compromise agreement as regards

t$e claims of livia and Lermes (ascual.EEO %ubse8uently, t$e 2ntestate

Court denied t$e claims of livia and Lermes (ascual. %aid denial #as

eventually a=rmed by t$is Court in 1" in Pascual $. Pascual0Bautista,44O

applying rticle " of t$e Civil Code.

2n t$e meantime, Doa dela died on 1 ugust 1, leaving be$ind a

last #ill and testament e'ecuted in 1, designating livia (ascual as t$e

e'ecutri', as #ell as t$e principal beneciary of $er estate. :$e #ill also

be8ueat$ed several legacies and devises to several individuals and

institutions.

3

E

4

7/24/2019 cases rem

30/54

livia (ascual t$en engaged t$e services of petitioner in connection

#it$ t$e settlement of t$e estate of Doa dela. :$eir agreement as to t$e

professional fees due to petitioner is contained in a letter dated "4 ugust

1, signed by tty. Hsteban %alonga in be$alf of petitioner and livia

(ascual. 2t is stipulated t$erein, among ot$ers, t$at t$e nal professional fee

s$all be 3T of t$e total gross estate as #ell as t$e fruits t$ereof based on

t$e court approved inventory of t$e estate. &ruits s$all be recIoned from t$e

time of livia (ascualsO appointment as e'ecutri' of t$e estate. :$e 3T nal

fee s$all be payable upon approval by t$e court of t$e agreement for t$e

distribution of t$e properties to t$e court designated $eirs of t$e estate.!!O

n "! ugust 1, private respondent, represented by petitioner,

commenced a petition for t$e probate of t$e last #ill and testament of Doa

dela before t$e (robate Court, docIeted as %p. (roc. No. 13!/N and

raUed to >ranc$ " presided by 5udge >en9amin /. 8uino, 5r. :$e petition

#as opposed by a certain /iguel Corne9o, 5r. and $is siblings, #$o in turn

presented a purported #ill e'ecuted in 14 by Doa dela in t$eir favor. O

fter due trial, on 1 5uly 13, t$e (robate Court rendered a

DecisionO allo#ing probate of t$e 1 -ast @ill and :estament of Doa

dela and disallo#ing t$e purported 14 @ill. -etters testamentary #ere

issued to livia (ascual.O Corne9o attempted to appeal t$is decision of t$e

!

7/24/2019 cases rem

31/54

(robate Court, but $is notice of appeal #as denied due course by t$e

(robate Court, said notice not $aving been accompanied by any record on

appeal as re8uired under t$e 2nterim Rules and by Rule 10 of t$e Rules of

Court.1010O

n " 5uly 13, petitioner led a Notice of ttorneys -ien e8uivalent

to t$ree percent )3T* of t$e total gross estate of t$e late Doa dela %.

(ascual as #ell as t$e fruits t$ereof based on t$e court approved inventory

of t$e estate, pursuant to t$e retainer agreement signed by and bet#een

petitioner and livia %. (ascual, on "4 ugust 1. 2n an rder dated E

November 13, t$e (robate Court ruled t$at petitioners notice of attorneys

lien, being fully supported by a retainers contract not repudiated nor

8uestioned by $is client livia %. (ascual, is $ereby noted as a lien t$at must

be satised c$argeable to t$e s$are of livia %. (ascual.1111O :$is #as

follo#ed by anot$er rder, dated 11 November 13, #$erein it #as

directed t$at notice be ' ' ' given, re8uiring all persons $aving claims for

money against t$e decedent, Doa dela %. Jda. de (ascual, arising from

contracts, e'press or implied, #$et$er t$e same be due, not due, or

contingent, for funeral e'penses and e'penses of t$e last sicIness of t$e

said decedent, and 9udgment for money against $er, to le said claims #it$

t$e ClerI of Court at /alabon, /etro /anila, #it$in si' )!* mont$s from

November E, 13.1"1"O

10

11

1"

7/24/2019 cases rem

32/54

ccordingly, on "" November 13, petitioner led a /otion to

nnotate ttorneys -ien on (roperties of t$e Hstate of Doa dela Jda. de

(ascual.1313O

2t #as at t$is stage, on 1 5anuary 1E, t$at t$e 2ntestate Court

rendered a Decision in %p. (roc. No. 44E, nally giving 9udicial approval to

t$e aforementioned 14 Compromise greement, and partitioning t$e

estate of Don ndres by ad9udicating onefourt$ )1FE* t$ereof to t$e $eirs of

Don ndres and t$reefourt$s )3FE* t$ereof to t$e estate of Doa dela. :$e

2ntestate Court also a#arded attorneys fees to tty. 5esus 2. %antos,

e8uivalent to 14T of t$e t$reefourt$s )3FE* s$are of t$e estate of Doa

dela.1E1EO livia (ascual led a petition for annulment of t$e a#ard of

attorneys fees #it$ t$e Court of ppeals, but t$e same #as denied, rst by

t$e appellate court, t$en nally by t$is Court in its 1 decision in Pascual

$. Court of /ppeals.1414O

n "! pril 1E, petitioner led a /otion for @rit of H'ecution for t$e

partial e'ecution of petitioners attorneys lien estimated at (1,1,0.0".

:$e gure, c$aracterized as tentative, #as arrived at based on a /otion to

%ubmit (ro9ect (artition dated "! ctober 13 led by livia (ascual, #$ic$

alleged t$e gross appraised value of Doa delas estate at (3,3!,4!.1.

:$is sum #as in turn derived from t$e alleged value of t$e total estate of Don

ndres, t$reefourt$s )3FE* of #$ic$ $ad been ad9udicated to Doa dela. t

13

1E

14

7/24/2019 cases rem

33/54

t$e same time, petitioner noted t$at t$e stated values must be considered as

only provisional, considering t$at t$ey #ere based on a 5uly 1 appraisal

reportG t$us, t$e claim for e'ecution #as, according to petitioner, #it$out

pre9udice to an updated appraisal of t$e properties comprising t$e gross

estate of Doa dela.1!1!O

n " pril 1E, livia (ascual, t$roug$ tty. ntonio Ravelo, led $er

comment andFor opposition to t$e motion for t$e issuance of a #rit of

e'ecution on attorneys fees. %$e argued t$at a la#yer of an administrator or

e'ecutor s$ould c$arge t$e individual client, not t$e estate, for professional

fees. livia (ascual also claimed, citing 9urisprudence11O, t$at t$e counsel

claiming attorneys fees s$ould give su=cient notice to all interested parties

to t$e estate, and t$at suc$ #as not accomplis$ed by petitioner considering

t$at no notices #ere given to t$e several legatees designated in Doa delas

#ill.11O 2t #as furt$er argued t$at t$e motion for e'ecution #as premature,

considering t$at t$e proceedings before t$e 2ntestate Court $ad not yet been

terminatedG t$at t$e computation of t$e gure of (1,1,0.0" #as

erroneousG and t$at t$e enforcement of t$e #rit of e'ecution on t$e undivided

estate of Don ndres #ould pre9udice $is ot$er $eirs entitled to onefourt$

)1FE* t$ereof.

n " 5une 1E, t$e (robate Court issued t$e rst assailed order

denying t$e motion for #rit of e'ecution in vie# of t$e fact t$at t$e bulI of

1!

1

1

7/24/2019 cases rem

34/54

t$e estate of t$e late Doa dela %. Jda. De (ascual is still tiedup #it$ t$e

estate of t$e late Don ndres (ascual, t$e proceedings over #$ic$ and t$e

nal disposition t$ereof #it$ respect to t$e partition and segregation of #$at

is to form part of t$e estate of t$e late Doa dela %. Jda. De (ascual is

pending #it$ anot$er court sitting in (asig, /etro /anila, and for $aving been

prematurely led.11O

n 1E November 1E, livia (ascual, led #it$ t$e (robate Court a

/otion to Declare 6eneral Default and Distribution of :estamentary

Dispositions #it$ Cancellation of dministrators >ond. 2t #as noted t$erein

t$at no creditor $ad led a claim against t$e estate of Doa dela despite due

notice publis$ed pursuant to %ection 1, Rule ! of t$e Rules of Court. :$e

(robate Court #as also informed of t$e fact t$at t$e proceedings before t$e

2ntestate Court $ad already been terminated by reason of t$e 1E 5anuary

1E Decision rendered by t$e latter court. 2t #as also stated t$at t$e

corresponding estate ta'es $ad been paid as evidenced by t$e Hstate :a'

Return led #it$ t$e >ureau of 2nternal Revenue, and of t$e Certicate of

ut$ority issued by t$e said agency."0

"0O 2nterestingly, it #as alsomanifested t$at t#o of t$e properties t$at formed part of t$e estates of t$e

spouses, t$e ngpin (roperty and t$e Jalenzuela (roperty, $ad in fact already

been partitioned bet#een t$e estate of Doa dela and t$e $eirs of Don

ndres at t$e ratio of t$reefourt$s )3FE* and onefourt$ )1FE*, respectively.

2n response, petitioner led a CommentF/anifestation praying t$at an

order be issued+

1

"0

7/24/2019 cases rem

35/54

)1* ordering t$e annotation of t$e attorneys lien on t$eproperties comprising t$e estate of Doa dela (ascualG)"* a #rit of partial e'ecution be issued for t$e satisfaction of t$e

attorneys lien of t$e undersigned counsel $erein petitionerO inrelation to t$e ngpin and Jalenzuela properties for t$e amountof 635,36+.14,#it$out pre9udice to t$e issuance of a #rit ofe'ecution after t$e reappraisal of t$e present marIet value oft$e estate and t$e determination of t$e amount due topetitionerO as attorneys feesG)3* ordering t$e appointment of a reputable appraisal companyto reappraise t$e present marIet value of t$e estate of Doadela (ascual including t$e fruits t$ereof for t$e purpose ofdetermining t$e value of t$e attorneys fees of petitionerOG and

)E* after t$e reappraisal of t$e estate of Doa dela (ascual a #ritof e'ecution be issued for t$e full satisfaction and settlement oft$e attorneys lien of petitionerO."1"1O

n 1 /arc$ 14, t$e (robate Court issued an order #$ic$ denied

petitioners motion for a reappraisal of t$e property and t$e issuance of a

partial #rit of e'ecution for being prematurely led as t$ere is no e'act estateyet to be inventoried and reappraised, assuming reappraisal #ould be

proper, because t$e bulI of t$e estate sub9ect of t$is case, as far as t$is court

is concerned, $as not yet been turned over to t$e e'ecutri' or to t$e court

itself.""""O

:$roug$ a petition for certiorari and mandamus, petitioner assailed t$e

t#o orders of t$e (robate Court denying its motion for t$e immediate

"1

""

7/24/2019 cases rem

36/54

e'ecution, partial or ot$er#ise, of its claim for attorneys fees+ t$e " 5une 1E

rder and t$e 1 /arc$ 14 rder. Nonet$eless, t$e t#in orders of t$e R:C

#ere a=rmed by t$e Court of ppeals, eBectively precluding petitioners

attempt to e'ecute on its attorneys lien. :$e appellate court noted t$at t$e

attorneys lien issued by t$e (robate Court #as c$argeable only to t$e s$are

of livia (ascual, and not to t$e estate of Doa dela, since it #as livia

(ascual #$o entered into t$e agreement #it$ petitioner for t$e payment of

attorneys fees in connection #it$ t$e settlement of t$e estate of Doa dela.

Citing acson $. 5eyes,"3"3O t$e Court of ppeals asserted t$at as a rule an

administrator or e'ecutor may be allo#ed fees for t$e necessary e'penses $e

$as incurred but $e may not recover attorneys fees from t$e estate.

:$e Court of ppeals liIe#ise noted t$at in t$e retainer agreement bet#een

petitioner and livia (ascual, it is stipulated t$at t$e 3T nal fee s$all be

payable upon approval by t$e court of t$e agreement for t$e distribution of

t$e properties to t$e court designated $eirs of t$e estate."E"EO n t$is score,

t$e Court of ppeals ruled t$at as t$e petition before it did not s$o# t$at an

agreement on t$e distribution of properties of t$e estate of Doa dela %.

(ascual $as been submitted and approved by t$e probate court,"4"4O t$e

ling of t$e motion for e'ecution and t$at of t$e motion for reappraisal of t$e

marIet value of t$e estate #ere bot$ premature.

(etitioner soug$t to reconsider t$e Decision of t$e Court of ppeals, but in

vain."!"!O Lence t$is petition.

"3

"E

"4

7/24/2019 cases rem

37/54

(etitioner argues t$at as $eld in Occea $. 6ar)ue%,""O t$e counsel seeIing

to recover attorneys fees for legal services to t$e e'ecutor or administrator is

aut$orized to le a petition in t$e testate or intestate proceedings asIing t$e

court, after notice to all t$e $eirs and interested parties, to direct t$e

payment of $is fees as e'penses of administration.""O acson, it is alleged,

#as inappropriately cited, since t$at case involved an e'ecutor #$o

concurrently #as a la#yer #$o subse8uently claimed attorneys fees as part

of t$e e'penses of administration. (etitioner also claims t$at t$e decision of

t$e probate court admitting Doa delas #ill to probate su=ciently satises

t$e condition in t$e Retainer greement t$at t$e nal fee be payable upon

approval by t$e court of t$e agreement for t$e distribution of t$e properties

to t$e court designated $eirs of t$e estate, t$e courtapproved #ill

comprising t$e agreement referred to in t$e contract.

(etitioner also taIes e'ception to t$e (robate Courts nding t$at t$e bulI of

t$e estate sub9ect of t$is case, as far as t$is cOourt is concerned, $as not

been turned over to t$e e'ecutri' or to t$e cOourt itself, on #$ic$ t$e

appellate court predicated its ruling t$at t$e motion for a #rit of e'ecution

#as premature. (etitioner submits t$at t$e (robate Court ineluctably $as

"!

"

"

7/24/2019 cases rem

38/54

9urisdiction over t$e estate of Doa dela, and $as necessarily assumed

control over t$e properties belonging to t$e said estate. :$us, petitioner

continues, t$ere is no longer need to a#ait t$e turnover of t$e properties

involved in t$e intestate estate of Don ndres #$ic$ constitute part of t$e

testate estate of Doa dela since t$e (robate Court and t$e 2ntestate Court

$ave concurrent 9urisdiction over t$ese properties as t$ey $ave not yet been

p$ysically divided.

(etitioner refers to t$e averment made by livia (ascual before t$e

(robate Court t$at t$e proceedings before t$e 2ntestate Court $ad already

been terminated, and t$at t$e proceeds of t$e sale of t$e ngpin (roperty

and t$e Jalenzuela (roperty $ad in fact been already divided based on t$e

t$reefourt$s )3FE* to onefourt$ )1FE* ratio bet#een t$e estate of Doa dela

and t$e $eirs of Don ndres. (etitioner furt$er points out t$at t$e (robate

Court $ad aut$orized and approved t$e sale of t$e ngpin (roperty, yet

refused to allo# t$e partial e'ecution of its claim for attorneys fees.

&inally, petitioner asserts t$at t$e (robate Court erred in refusing to

grant t$e prayer seeIing t$e reappraisal of t$e property of Doa delas

estate. %uc$ reappraisal, so it claims, is necessary in order to determine t$e

t$ree percent )3T* s$are in t$e total gross estate committed to petitioner by

reason of t$e Retainer greement.

2t appears t$at t$e t$rust of t$e assailed Decision of t$e Court of

ppeals is along t$ese lines+ t$at petitioner may directly claim attorneys fees

only against livia (ascual and not against t$e estate of Doa delaG and t$at

petitioners claim is also premature since contrary to t$e re8uisite stipulated

7/24/2019 cases rem

39/54

in t$e Retainer greement, t$ere is no courtapproved agreement for t$e

distribution of t$e properties of t$e estate of Doa dela as yet.

s an initial premise, #e consider #$et$er a la#yer #$o renders legal

services to t$e e'ecutor or administrator of an estate can claim attorneys

fees against t$e estate instead of t$e e'ecutor or administrator. (etitioner

correctly cites Occea $. 6ar)ue%78"O as providing t$e governing rule on t$at

matter as previously settled in t$e 104 case of scueta $. +y0uillion#,3030O

to #it+

:$e rule is t$at #$en a la#yer $as rendered legal servicesto t$e e'ecutor or administrator to assist $im in t$e e'ecution of$is trust, $is attorney;s fees may be allo#ed as e'penses ofadministration. :$e estate is, $o#ever, not directly liable for $isfees, t$e liability for payment resting primarily on t$e e'ecutor oradministrator. 2f t$e administrator $ad paid t$e fees, $e #ould beentitled to reimbursement from t$e estate. :$e procedure to befollo#ed by counsel in order to collect $is fees is to re8uest t$eadministrator to maIe payment, and s$ould t$e latter fail to pay,eit$er to )a* le an action against $im in $is personal capacity,and not as administrator, or )b* le a petition in t$e testate orintestate proceedings asIing t$e court, after notice to all t$e$eirs and interested parties, to direct t$e payment of $is fees ase'penses of administration. @$ic$ever course is adopted, t$e$eirs and ot$er persons interested in t$e estate #ill $ave t$erig$t to in8uire into t$e value of t$e services of t$e la#yer andon t$e necessity of $is employment.3131O

"

30

31

7/24/2019 cases rem

40/54

@e reiterate t$at as a general rule, it is t$e e'ecutor or administrator #$o is

primarily liable for attorneys fees due to t$e la#yer #$o rendered legal

services for t$e e'ecutor or administrator in relation to t$e settlement of t$e

estate. :$e e'ecutor or administrator may seeI reimbursement from t$e

estate for t$e sums paid in attorneys fees if it can be s$o#n t$at t$e services

of t$e la#yer redounded to t$e benet of t$e estate.3"3"O Lo#ever, if t$e

e'ecutor or administrator refuses to pay t$e attorneys fees, t$e la#yer $as

t#o modes of recourse. 9irst, t$e la#yer may le an action against t$e

e'ecutor or administrator, but in $isF$er personal capacity and not asadministrator or e'ecutor. +econd, t$e la#yer may le a petition in t$e

testate or intestate proceedings, asIing t$e court to direct t$e payment of

attorneys fees as an e'pense of administration. 2f t$e second mode is

resorted to, it is essential t$at notice to all t$e $eirs and interested parties be

made so as to enable t$ese persons to in8uire into t$e value of t$e services

of t$e la#yer and on t$e necessity of $is employment.

acson $. 5eyes,3333O cited by t$e appellate court, involved an e'ecutor #$o

also $appened to be t$e la#yer for t$e $eirs #$o $ad led t$e petition for

probate. &or t$at reason, t$at case is not s8uarely in point to t$e case at bar.

2t #as pronounced t$erein t$at t$e administrator or e'ecutor of t$e estate

cannot c$arge professional fees for legal services against t$e same estate, as

e'plicitly provided under %ection , Rule 4 of t$e Rules of Court of 14.3E

3"

33

3E

7/24/2019 cases rem

41/54

3EO No suc$ rule e'ists barring direct recovery of professional legal fees from

t$e estate by t$e la#yer #$o is not t$e e'ecutor or administrator of t$e said

estate. :$e limitations on suc$ direct recovery are nonet$eless establis$ed by

9urisprudence, as evinced by t$e rulings in scueta and Occea.

:$e c$aracter of suc$ claim for attorneys fees bears reiteration. s stated in

scueta, it partaIes t$e nature of an administration e'pense. dministration

e'penses include attorneys fees incurred in connection #it$ t$e

administration of t$e estate.3434O 2t is an e'pense attending t$e

accomplis$ment of t$e purpose of administration gro#ing out of t$e contract

or obligation entered into by t$e personal representative of t$e estate, and

t$us t$e claim for reimbursement must be superior to t$e rig$ts of t$e

beneciaries.3!3!O

Not#it$standing, t$ere may be instances #$erein t$e estate s$ould not be

c$arged #it$ attorneys fees. 2f t$e costs of counsels fees arise out of litigation

among t$e beneciaries t$ereof t$emselves or in t$e protection of t$e

interests of particular persons, t$e estate generally cannot be $eld liable for

suc$ costs, alt$oug$ #$en t$e administrator employs competent counsel on

8uestions #$ic$ aBect $isF$er duties as t$e administrator and on #$ic$

$eFs$e is in reasonable doubt, reasonable e'penses for suc$ services may be

c$arged against t$e estate sub9ect to t$e approval of t$e court.33O 2t $as

also been $eld t$at an administrator #$o brings on litigation for t$e

34

3!

3

7/24/2019 cases rem

42/54

deliberate purpose of defrauding t$e legitimate $eirs and for $is o#n benet

is not entitled to reimbursement for counsels fees incurred in suc$ litigation.3

3O

Clearly t$en, #$ile t$e direct recovery of attorneys fees from t$e estate

may be aut$orized if t$e e'ecutor refuses to pay suc$ fees, and claimed

t$roug$ t$e ling of t$e proper petition #it$ t$e probate court, suc$ claim

remains controvertible. :$is is precisely #$y scueta and its progenies

re8uire t$at t$e petition be made ?/( no(/'e (o a (e e/* and

/n(e*e(ed 0a*(/e.

2t is t$ese perspectives t$at #e apply to t$e case at bar. Notably,

petitioner $ad led bot$ a Notice of ttorneys -ien and a /otion for @rit of

H'ecution. :$ese t#o pleadings $ave distinct c$aracter and must be treated

as suc$.

fter Doa delas #ill $ad been admitted to probate, petitioner $ad

initially led a Notice of ttorneys -ien #$erein it identied itself as t$e

attorney for t$e e'ecutri' named in t$e said #ill, Dra. livia %. (ascual, and

soug$t to le its claim andFor lien for attorneys fees e8uivalent to :$ree

(ercent )3T* of t$e total gross estate, pursuant to t$e 1 Retainer

greement. Copies of t$is Notice of ttorneys -ien #ere furnis$ed ttys.

&ortunato Jiray, 5r. and Crisanto Corne9o, #$o appear on record to $ave

served as counsels for t$e various oppositors to t$e probate of t$e 1 #ill

of Doa dela. :$is Notice of ttorneys -ien #as noted by t$e (robate Court in

3

7/24/2019 cases rem

43/54

its rder of E November 13, as a lien t$at must be satised c$argeable to

t$e s$are of livia %. (ascual.

2t may be so t$at petitioner, in ling t$is Notice of ttorneys -ien,

initially intended to $old livia (ascual, and not Doa delas estate, liable for

t$e attorneys fees. 2t did identify itself as t$e la#yer of livia (ascual, and t$e

(robate Court did note t$at t$e lien be satised c$argeable to t$e s$are of

t$e e'ecutor. Pet it must also be noted t$at suc$ lien, as it is, is only

contingent on t$e nal settlement of t$e estate of Doa dela, at suc$ time,

since t$e Retainer greement on #$ic$ t$e lien is $inged provides t$at t$e

nal fee be payable upon approval by t$e court of t$e agreement for t$e

distribution of t$e properties to t$e court designated $eirs of t$e estate. 33O

:$is is also made clear by t$e order noting t$e lien, #$ic$ 8ualied t$at said

lien #as c$argeable only to t$e s$are of livia (ascual, $ence implying t$at at

t$e very least, it may be claimed only after $er s$are to Doa delas estate is

already determinate.

2n rendering its assailed Decision, t$e Court of ppeals relied on t$is

8ualication made by t$e (robate Court t$at t$e lien for attorneys fees #as

c$argeable only to t$e s$are of livia (ascual. (e 0enden'; o> (e 'a/7 >o*

a((o*ne; >ee, and no( (e 0a;7en( o> u' >ee /(e>. On /( o?n,

(e No(/'e o> !((o*ne; L/en 'anno( e*e a (e )a/ >o* (e

*o)a(e #ou*( (o au(o*/Ae (e 0a;7en( (o 0e(/(/one* o> a((o*ne;

>ee.

3

7/24/2019 cases rem

44/54

On (e o(e* and, Escuetaand /( @/nd*ed 'ae do eB0/'/(;

*e'o=n/Ae (e *e'ou*e >o* (e a?;e* (o d/*e'(; 7a@e (e 'a/7 >o*

a((o*ne; >ee a=a/n( (e e(a(e, no( (e eBe'u(o* o* ad7/n/(*a(o*.

e C/n= o> (e No(/'e o> !((o*ne; L/en and (e ua/C'a(o*;

'a*a'(e* o> (e *u/n= (e*eon, do no( 0*e'ude (e *eo*( (o (e

7ode o> *e'oe*; a=a/n( (e e(a(e a au(o*/Aed ); u*/0*uden'e.

#ea*; (en, ?e d/a=*ee ?/( (e o0/n/on o> (e #ou*( o> !00ea

(a( a((o*ne; >ee 'an )e 'a/7ed on; a=a/n( (e a*e o> O//a

a'ua.

:$e instant case is rooted in an incomplete attempt to resort to t$e

second mode of recovery of attorneys fees as aut$orized in scueta,

originating as it did from t$e denial of petitioners /otion for @rit of H'ecution,

and not t$e Notice of ttorneys -ien. :$e /otion did e'pressly seeI t$e

payment of attorneys fees to petitioner. scueta and Occea, among ot$er

cases, did clearly lay do#n t$e manner under #$ic$ suc$ fees may be paid

out even prior to t$e nal settlement of t$e estate as an administration

e'pense directly c$argeable to t$e estate itself. :$e critical 8uestion in t$e

present petition is t$us #$et$er t$is /otion for @rit of H'ecution satises t$e

re8uisites set in scuetafor a claim for attorneys fees directly c$argeable

against t$e estate. 2t does not.

:$e fact t$at t$e prayer for attorneys fees #as cast in a motion and not

a petition s$ould not impede suc$ claim, considering t$at t$e motion #as

nonet$eless led #it$ t$e (robate Court. $o?ee*, (e *e'o*d )ea* (a(

(e *eu//(e no(/'e (o a e/* and /n(e*e(ed 0a*(/e a no( )een

a(/Ced.Doa delas #ill designated 1 ot$er individuals apart from livia

(ascual, and four )E* diBerent institutions as recipients of devises or legacies

7/24/2019 cases rem

45/54

consisting of real properties, 9e#elries, and cas$ amounts. Pet only livia

(ascual #as served #it$ a copy of t$e /otion for @rit of H'ecution, t$e

motion #$ic$ eBectively soug$t t$e immediate payment of petitioners

attorneys fees. s early as " pril 1E, livia (ascual, in opposing t$e

/otion for @rit of H'ecution, already pointed out t$at petitioner $ad failed to

give su=cient notice to all interested parties to t$e estate, particularly t$e

several devisees and legatees so named in Doa delas #ill.

%uc$ notice is material to t$e ot$er $eirs to Doa delas estate. :$e

payment of attorneys fees, especially in t$e amount of 3T of t$e total gross

estate as soug$t for by petitioner, substantially diminis$es t$e estate of Doa

dela and may conse8uently cause t$e diminution of t$eir devises and

legacies. %ince t$ese persons #ere so named in t$e very #ill itself and t$e

action for probate #$ic$ #as led by petitioner itself, t$ere is no reason #$y

petitioner could not $ave given due notice to t$ese persons on its claim for

attorneys fees.

:$e re8uisite notice to t$e $eirs, devisees, and legatees is anc$ored on

t$e constitutional principle t$at no person s$all be deprived of property

#it$out due process of la#.E0E0O :$e fact t$at t$ese persons #ere designated

in t$e #ill as recipients of t$e testamentary dispositions from t$e decedent

establis$es t$eir rig$ts to t$e succession, #$ic$ are transmitted to t$em from

t$e moment of t$e deat$ of t$e decedent.E1E1O :$e payment of suc$

E0

E1

7/24/2019 cases rem

46/54

attorneys fees necessarily diminis$es t$e estate of t$e decedent, and may

eBectively diminis$ t$e value of t$e testamentary dispositions made by t$e

decedent. :$ese $eirs, devisees, and legatees ac8uire proprietary rig$ts by

reason of t$e #ill upon t$e moment of t$e deat$ of t$e decedent, incipient or

inc$oate as suc$ rig$ts may be. Lence, notice to t$ese interested persons of

t$e claims for attorneys fees is integral, so as to allo# t$em to pose any

ob9ections or oppositions to suc$ claim #$ic$, after all, could lead to t$e

reduction of t$eir benets from t$e estate.

:$e failure to notify t$e ot$er $eirs, devisees or legatees, to t$e estate

of Doa dela liIe#ise deprives t$ese interested persons of t$e rig$t to be

$eard in a $earing geared to#ards determining #$et$er petitioner #as

entitled to t$e immediate payment of attorneys fees. Notably, petitioner, in

ling its /otion for @rit of H'ecution, $ad initially set t$e $earing on t$e

motion on " pril 1E, but one day prior to t$e sc$eduled $earing, gave

notice instead t$at t$e motion #as being submitted for t$e consideration of

t$e (robate Court #it$out furt$er argument.E"E"O Hvidently, petitioner did

not intend a fullblo#n $earing to ensue on #$et$er it #as entitled to t$e

payment of attorneys fees. Pet t$e claim for attorneys fees is $ardly

incontrovertible.

:$at t$e Retainer greement set t$e attorneys fees at t$ree percent

)3T* of t$e gross estate does not imply t$at t$e basis for attorneys fees is

beyond controversy. ttorneys fees in t$is case are in t$e nature of

administration e'penses, or necessary e'penses in t$e rst place. ny party

interested in t$e estate may very #ell, in t$eory, posit a myriad of ob9ections

to t$e attorneys fees soug$t, suc$ as for e'ample, t$at t$ese fees #ere not

E"

7/24/2019 cases rem

47/54

necessary e'penses in t$e care, management, and settlement of t$e estate.

@$et$er or not suc$ basis for valid ob9ections e'ists in t$is case is not

evident, but t$e fact remains t$at all t$e parties interested in t$e estate,

namely t$e ot$er devisees and legatees, #ere deprived of t$e opportunity to

raise suc$ ob9ections as t$ey #ere not served notice of t$e /otion for @rit of

H'ecution.

:$e instant claim for attorneys fees is t$us precluded by t$e absence of

t$e re8uisite notices by petitioner to all t$e interested persons suc$ as t$e

designated $eirs, devisees, legatees, as re8uired by t$e 9urisprudential rule

laid do#n in scueta. Lo#ever, t$e Court of ppeals $eld t$at it #as t$e

prematurity of t$e claim for attorneys fees t$at served as t$e fatal

impediment. n t$is point, t$e Court does not agree.

gain, t$e remaining perip$eral 8uestions #arrant clarication.

scuetaitself provides for t#o alternative approac$es t$roug$ #$ic$

counsel may proceed #it$ $is claim for attorneys fees. :$e rst involves a

separate suit against t$e e'ecutor or administrator in t$e latters personal

capacity. :$e second approac$ is a direct claim against t$e estate itself, #it$

due notice to all interested persons, led #it$ t$e probate court.

7/24/2019 cases rem

48/54

2n t$e same vein, t$e e'istence of t$e Retainer greement bet#een

petitioner and livia (ascual allo#s petitioner t#o possible causes of action

on #$ic$ to claim attorneys fees in connection #it$ t$e administration of t$e

estate of Doa dela. :$e rst possible cause of action pivots on t$e Retainer

greement, #$ic$ establis$es an obligation on t$e part of livia (ascual to

pay t$e nal fee of 3T of t$e gross total estate of Doa dela, payable upon

approval by t$e (robate Court of t$e agreement for t$e distribution of t$e

properties to t$e court designated $eirs of t$e estate. Necessarily, since t$e

recovery of attorneys fees is premised on t$e Retainer greement any a#ard

t$ereupon $as to a#ait t$e nal ascertainment of value of t$e gross total

estate of Doa dela, as #ell as t$e approval by t$e (robate Court of t$e

agreement for t$e distribution of t$e properties. :$e Retainer greement

maIes it clear t$at t$e nal payment of attorneys fees is contingent on t$ese

t#o conditions,E3E3O and t$e claim for attorneys fees based on t$e Retainer

greement cannot ripen until t$ese conditions are met.

/oreover, it cannot be escaped t$at t$e Retainer greement #as

entered into bet#een petitioner and livia (ascual prior to t$e ling of t$e

probate petition, and t$at at suc$ time, s$e $ad no recognized rig$t to

represent t$e estate of Doa dela yet. :$is

circumstance furt$er bolsters our opinion t$at if petitioner insists on t$e

9udicial enforcement of t$e Retainer greement, its proper remedy,

aut$orized by la# and 9urisprudence, #ould be a personal action against

livia (ascual, and not against t$e estate of Doa dela. 2f t$is #ere t$e

recourse pursued by petitioner, and livia (ascual is ultimately $eld liable

under t$e Retainer greement for attorneys fees, s$e may nonet$eless seeI

E3

7/24/2019 cases rem

49/54

reimbursement from t$e estate of Doa dela if s$e #ere able to establis$ t$at

t$e attorneys fees paid to petitioner #ere necessary administration e'penses.

:$e second or alternative recourse is t$e direct claim for attorneys fees

against t$e estate, as aut$orized under scueta. e 'a*a'(e* o> (/

'a/7 / no( 'on(*a'(ua /n na(u*e, )u( *a(e*, a a *e/7)u*e7en( >o*

a ne'ea*; eB0ene o> ad7/n/(*a(/on, and /( ?/ )e ao?ed /> /(

a(/Ce (e '*/(e*/a >o* ne'ea*; eB0ene o> ad7/n/(*a(/on. 2ts

entitlement can be establis$ed by t$e actual services rendered by t$e la#yer

necessary to t$e accomplis$ment of t$e purposes of administration, and not

necessarily by t$e contract of engagement of t$e attorneys services.

>y ling t$eir claim directly against t$e estate of Doa dela, petitioner

$as clearly resorted to t$is second cause of action. :$ere are conse8uent

advantages and disadvantages to petitioner. %ince t$e claim arises

irrespective of t$e contingencies as stipulated in t$e Retainer greement, t$e

attorneys fees may be collected against t$e estate even before t$e nal

determination of its gross total value or t$e nal approval of t$e pro9ect of

partition. s earlier stated, suc$ claim for reimbursement is superior to t$e

rig$t of t$e beneciaries to t$e estate, and as suc$, t$ere is need to nally

determine t$e respective s$ares of t$e beneciaries before attorneys fees in

t$e nature of administration e'penses may be paid out.

:$e one distinct disadvantage, $o#ever, is t$at t$e Retainer greement

cannot be deemed binding on t$e estate or t$e (robate Court since t$e

estate is not a party to suc$ contract. :$is #ould not preclude t$e (robate

Court from enforcing t$e provisions of t$e Retainer greement if, in its sound

7/24/2019 cases rem

50/54

discretion, t$e terms of payment t$erein are commensurate to t$e value of

t$e actual services necessary to t$e administration of t$e estate actually

rendered by petitioner. Pet if t$e (robate Court does c$oose to adopt t$e

Retainer greement as binding on t$e estate of Doa dela, petitioner may

again be precluded from immediate recovery of attorneys fees in vie# of t$e

necessity or precondition of ascertaining t$e gross total value of t$e estate,

as #ell as t$e 9udicial approval of t$e nal agreement of partition.

2n any event, #$et$er t$e claim for attorneys fees #as pursued t$roug$

a separate suit against livia (ascual )in $er personal capacity* for t$e

enforcement of t$e Retainer greement, or against t$e estate of Doa dela as

reimbursement for necessary administration e'penses, it remains essential

t$at a $earing be conducted on t$e claim. 2n eit$er case too, t$e $earing #ill

focus on t$e value of t$e services of t$e petitioner and t$e necessity of

engaging petitioner as counsel.

@e reiterate t$at t$e direct claim against t$e estate for attorneys fees

must be made #it$ due notice to t$e $eirs, devisees, and legatees. :$e

failure of petitioner to give suc$ notice renders its present claim ine=cacious

for no#. 2ndeed, t$ere is su=cient cause to dismiss outrig$t petitioners

/otion for @rit of 2mmediate H'ecution led #it$ t$e (robate Court, for its

failure to notify t$erein t$e ot$er persons interested in t$e estate of Doa

dela. Nonet$eless, to aut$orize said outrig$t denial at t$is stage could

unduly delay t$e settlement of t$e estate of Doa dela, considering t$e

7/24/2019 cases rem

51/54

liIeli$ood t$at petitioner #ould again pursue suc$ claim for attorneys fees as

t$e rig$t to #$ic$ is a=rmed by la# and 9urisprudence.

Lence, in order not to unduly protract furt$er t$e settlement of t$e

estate of Doa dela, t$e Court deems it proper instead to mandate t$e

(robate Court to treat t$e /otion for @rit of 2mmediate H'ecution as a

petition seeIing a court order to direct t$e payment of attorneys fees as

e'penses of administration, but sub9ect to t$e condition t$at petitioner give

due notice to t$e ot$er designated devisees and legatees so designated in

t$e #ill of t$e claim prior to t$e re8uisite $earing t$ereon. (etitioner may as

#ell seize suc$ opportunity to formally amend or recongure its motion to a

petition to direct payment of attorneys fees. nce t$is step is accomplis$ed,

t$ere s$ould be no impediment to petitioners claim for recovery of attorneys

fees as reimbursement for necessary administration e'penses, #it$in t$e

terms establis$ed by la#, 9urisprudence, and t$is decision.

ne nal note. (etitioners nal prayer before t$is court is t$at it be

issued a partial #rit of e'ecution, consistent #it$ its position before t$e

(robate Court t$at it is already entitled to at least a partial payment of its

attorneys fees. :$is prayer cannot obviously be granted at t$is stage by t$e

Court, considering t$e fatal absence of due notice to t$e ot$er designated

beneciaries to t$e estate of Doa dela. %till, #e do not doubt t$at t$e

(robate Court, #it$in its discretion, is capacitated to render t$e a#ard of

attorneys fees as administration e'penses eit$er partially or provisionally,

depending on t$e particular circumstances and its ultimate basis for t$e

determination of t$e appropriate attorneys fees.

7/24/2019 cases rem

52/54

@LHRH&RH, t$e petition is 6RN:HD 2N (R:. :$e Decision of t$e

Court of ppeals dated "" December 14 and t$e rders of t$e Regional

:rial Court of /alabon, >ranc$ ", dated " 5une 1E and 1 /arc$ 14 are

$ereby %H: %2DH insofar as said orders denied petitioners /otion for @rit of

2mmediate H'ecution dated "! pril 1E. (etitioner is $ereby directed to set

for $earing its claim for attorneys fees, giving due notice t$ereof to all t$e

$eirs, devisees, and legatees designated in t$e 1 -ast @ill and :estament

e'ecuted by Doa dela (ascual. :$e Regional :rial Court is directed to treat

petitioners aforesaid motion as a (H:2:2N for t$e payment of attorneys fees

as e'penses of administration, and after due $earing resolve t$e same #it$

D2%(:CL, conformably #it$ t$is decision. No pronouncement as to costs.

% RDHRHD.

G.R. No. L-%+46 Janua*; 31, 195%

In (e 7a((e* o> (e /n(e(a(e e(a(e o> (e de'eaed Ra>ae L/(a7.

GREGORIO D< !M,petitionerappellant,vs.

REMEDIOS ESIRIU, a =ua*d/an o> (e /n'o70e(en( Ma*'oa

R/e*a, and !RMINIO RIER!, o00o/(o*-a00eee.

7/24/2019 cases rem

53/54

+ycip, :uisu!"in#, +ala%ar ; /ssociates for appellant.

. . -on%ales for clai!ant and appellee.

e los +antos ; e los +antos for ad!inistrator and appellee.

!DILL!, J.

n "1 /ay 14" 6regorio Dy :am led in t$e Court of &irst 2nstance of Rizal a

petition dated "E pril 14" for t$e administration and settlement of t$e

estate of Rafael -itam #$o died intestate in /anila on 10 5anuary 141

)special proceedings No. 143*, claiming t$at $e and four brot$ers and t$ree

sisters are t$e c$ildren of t$e decedent $ad #it$ %ia $in, no# deceased, by

a marriage celebrated in C$ina sometime in 111G t$at after t$e deat$ of

t$eir fat$er t$e petitioner and $is brot$ers and sisters came to Ino# t$at

t$eir fat$er $ad contracted in 1"" in t$e ($ilippines, during t$e subsistence

of $is previous marriage #it$ sia $in, anot$er marriage #it$ /arcosa Riveraout of #$ic$ marriage $ere is no issueG and t$at t$e deceased ac8uired

properties during $is lifetime and marital union #it$ /arcosa Rivera one$alf

of #$ic$ valued at (!4,000 belonged to t$eir fat$er.

n 1" 5uly 14" /arcosa Rivera led a counterpetition denying t$e alleged

marriage of t$e deceased to %ia $in and t$e liation of t$e petition and $is

brot$ers and sistersG asserting t$at t$e properties claimed by t$e petitioners

and $is brot$ers and sisters to $ave been ac8uired by t$eir fat$er as

parap$ernaG and praying t$at rminio Rivera be appointed administrator of

t$e estate of t$e deceased. s prayed for, " ugust 14" letters ofadministration #ere issued to rminio Rivera #$o upon t$e ling of a bond

tooI t$e oat$ and entered upon t$e performance of $is duties. n

%eptember 14" t$e Court entered an order notifying all persons $aving

claims for money against t$e decedent to le t$eir claims #it$ t$e clerI of

court #it$in t$e statutory period.

n 10 /arc$ 143 Remedios R. Hspiritu, guardian of t$e incompetent

/arcosa Rivera )special proceedings No. 10 of t$e same Court*, led a

claim against t$e estate of t$e deceased Rafael -itam, alleging t$at t$e

defendant #as indebted to $er #ard in t$e sum of ("4",!4.33, as

evidenced by a public instrument dated "E &ebruary 1E! and a private

document dated " November 140, and praying t$at t$e administrator of

t$e estate of t$e late Rafael -itam be ordered to pay $er in $er capacity as

guardian of t$e aforesaid sum toget$er #it$ t$e stipulated interest at 10T

per annum on (!",000 and legal interest in (10,!4.33 from t$e date of t$e

7/24/2019 cases rem

54/54

ling of t$e claim until fully paid. n 1E /arc$ 143 t$e administrator led

an ans#er admitting t$at t$e claim of Remedios R. Hspiritu in $er capacity as

guardian of t$e incompetent /arcosa Rivera is y t$is pronouncement, t$e basis upon #$ic$ t$eappellants and $is brot$ers and sisters could claim any interest and s$are in

t$e estate of t$e deceased Rafael -itam $as disappeared. Lence t$ey $ave

no legal standing to ob9ect to t$e claim of /arcosa Rivera.

:$e appeal dismissed, #it$out pronouncement as to costs.