SALIGUMBA VS. PALANOG GR. 143365, DECEMBER 4, 2008 Facts:
Spouses Palanog filed a complaint for Quieting of Title with Damages against defendants, spouses Valeria Saligumba and Eliseo Saligumba, Sr. (spouses Saligumbas), before the Regional Trial Court. In the complaint, spouses Palanog alleged that they have been in actual, open, adverse and continuous possession as owners for more than 50 years of a parcel of land. The spouses Saligumbas allegedly prevented them from entering and residing on the subject premises and had destroyed the barbed wires enclosing the land.
At the trial, only the counsel for spouses Palanogs appeared. It appeared that Eliseo Saligumba, Sr. and Valeria Saligumba died. No motion for the substitution of the spouses was filed nor an order issued for the substitution of the deceased spouses Saligumbas despite notices sent to them to appear, never confirmed the death of Eliseo Saligumba, Sr. and Valeria Saligumba.
After a lapse of more than two years, the trial court rendered a judgment declaring spouses Palanog the lawful owners of the subject land. No motion for reconsideration nor appeal having been filed.
After 10 years, Palanog filed a Complaint seeking to revive and enforce the said decision. She further requested that the heirs and children of spouses Saligumbas be impleaded as defendants.
Petitioners thus question the decision as being void and of no legal effect because their parents were not duly represented by counsel of record. Petitioners further argue that they have never taken part in the proceedings nor did they voluntarily appear or participate in the case. It is unfair to bind them in a decision rendered against their deceased parents. Therefore, being a void judgment, it has no legal nor binding effect on petitioners. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
WON an action for quieting of title, which is an action involving real property, is extinguished upon death of the party?
Ruling:
No. The case is an action for quieting of title with damages which is an action involving real property. It is an action that survives pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87 as the claim is not extinguished by the death of a party. And when a party dies in an action that survives, Section 17 of Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that after a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal
representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be granted. If the legal representative fails to appear within said time, the court may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal representative of the deceased within a time to be specified by the court, and the representative shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the interest of the deceased. The court charges involved in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
EPIFANIO SAN JUAN, JR. vs. JUDGE RAMON A. CRUZ G.R. No. 167321 July 31, 2006
Facts:
Loreto Samia San Juan executed a Last Will and Testament naming Oscar Casa as one of the devisees therein. Upon Loreto‘s death a certain Atty. Teodorico A. Aquino filed a petition for the probate of the will. While the petition for the probate of the will was pending, the devisee Oscar Casa died, intestate. Aquino filed a pleading entitled ―Appointment of Administrator‖ signed by Candelaria, Jesus, Arlyn, Nestor, Edna, Benhur, Federico, Rafael and Ma. Eden, all surnamed Casa, praying that one of them, Federico Casa, Jr., be designated as administrator of the estate of the deceased and that he be substituted for the deceased. Petitioner contested the same.
Issue:
WON a person nominated as ―administrator‖ by purported heirs of a devisee or legatee in a will under probate may validly substitute for that devisee or legatee in the probate proceedings despite the fact that such administrator is not the court-appointed administrator of the estate of the devisee or legatee?
Ruling:
The heirs of the estate of Oscar Casa do not need to first secure the appointment of an administrator of his estate, because from the very moment of his death, they stepped into his shoes and acquired his rights as devisee/legatee of the deceased Loreto San Juan. Thus, a prior appointment of an administrator or executor of the estate of Oscar Casa is not necessary for his heirs to acquire legal capacity to be substituted as representatives of the estate. Said heirs may designate one or some of them as their representative before the trial court.
ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA vs FE VDA. DE TE G.R. No. 175910 July 30, 2009
Facts:
Respondent Fe Vda.deTe, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Faustino Castañeda, filed with the RTC, a Complaint for recovery of motor vehicle, damages with prayer for the delivery of the truck pendente lite against petitioner (Atty. Sarsaba), Sereno, Lavarez and the NLRC of Davao City.
Respondent alleged, among others, that: (1) she is the wife of the late Pedro Te, the registered owner of the truck, as evidenced by the Official Receipt and Certificate of Registration.
Petitioner Sarsaba alleges that that there was no showing that the heirs have filed an intestate estate proceedings of the estate of Pedro Te, or that respondent was duly authorized by her co-heirs to file the case; and that the truck was already sold to Gasing on March 11, 1986 by one Jesus Matias, who bought the same from the Spouses Te. Corollarily, Gasing was already the lawful owner of the truck when it was levied on execution and, later on, sold at public auction.
On October 17, 2005, petitioner Sarsaba filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss the Case on the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction over one of the principal defendants; and (2) to discharge respondent's attorney-in-fact for lack of legal personality to sue.
It appeared that the respondent, Fe Vda. deTe, died on April 12, 2005.
Respondent, through her lawyer, argues that respondent's death did not render functus officio her right to sue since her attorney-in-fact, Faustino Castañeda, had long testified on the complaint on March 13, 1998 for and on her behalf and, accordingly, submitted documentary exhibits in support of the complaint.
Issue:
What is the legal effect of death of the plaintiff during the pendency of the case? Held:
When a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not extinguished, the Rules of Court require a substitution of the deceased.
Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court enumerates the actions that survived and may be filed against the decedent's representatives as follows:
2. actions to enforce liens thereon, and
3. actions to recover damages for an injury to a person or a property.
In such cases, a counsel is obliged to inform the court of the death of his client and give the name and address of the latter's legal representative.
The rule on substitution of parties is governed by Section 16, 46 Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
The rule on substitution by heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process.
The rule on substitution was crafted to protect every party's right to due process.
It was designed to ensure that the deceased party would continue to be properly represented in the suit through his heirs or the duly appointed legal representative of his estate.
It is only when there is a denial of due process, as when the deceased is not represented by any legal representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial proceedings and the resulting judgment therein.
In the case before Us, it appears that respondent's counsel did not make any manifestation before the RTC as to her death. In fact, he had actively participated in the proceedings. Neither had he shown any proof that he had been retained by respondent's legal representative or any one who succeeded her.
However, such failure of counsel would not lead Us to invalidate the proceedings that have long taken place before the RTC. The Court has repeatedly declared that failure of the counsel to comply with his duty to inform the court of the death of his client, such that no substitution is effected, will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment rendered thereon if the action survives the death of such party. The trial court's jurisdiction over the case subsists despite the death of the party.
The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right to due process of every party to the litigation who may be affected by the intervening death. The deceased litigants are themselves protected as they continue to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of their estate.
Despite the special power of attorney given to Castaneda by Fe Vda. De Te has been extinguished due to the death of the principal, the case at hand is an action for the recovery of a personal property, a motor vehicle, is an action that survives and is not extinguished by the death of a party.
THE HEIRS OF MARCELINO DORONIO vs.HEIRS OF FORTUNATO DORONIOG.R. No. 169454, December 27, 2007
Facts:
Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante, now both deceased, were the registered owners of a parcel of land located at Asingan, Pangasinan covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 352. MarcelinoDoronio and Fortunato Doronio, now both deceased, were among their children and herein represented by their heirs, petitioners and respondents respectively.
In 1919, a private deed of donation propter nuptiaswas executed by spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante in favor of MarcelinoDoronio and the latter‘s wife on the subject property which was occupied by both parties for several decades. Petitioners now claim ownership of the land in view of the private deed of donation propter nuptias in favor of their predecessors, MarcelinoDoronio and wife.
Respondents, on the other hand, contends that they acquired one-half of the property covered by OCT No. 352 by tradition and/or intestate succession; that the deed of donation was null and void; that assuming that the deed of donation was valid, only one-half of the property was actually donated to MarcelinoDoronio and Veronica Pico; and that respondents acquired ownership of the other half portion of the property by acquisitive prescription and that the subject land is different from what was donated as the descriptions of the property under OCT No. 352 and under the private deed of donation were different..
Petitioners filed before RTC in Urdaneta, Pangasinan a petition "For the Registration of a Private Deed of Donation". Petition was granted and TCT 4481 issued to petitioners. Respondent‘s MR denied. Respondents, in turn, filed an action for reconveyance and damages with prayer for preliminary injunctionagainst petitioner. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner heirs of MarcelinoDoronio. CA reversed RTC. Hence, this petition with petitioners contending that the RTC no jurisdiction to hear the case since issues on Impairment of Legitime Should Be Threshed Out in a Special Proceeding, Not in Civil Action for Reconveyance and Damages.
Issues:
1. Whether or not issue on Impairment of LegitimeShould properly be threshed out in Civil Action for Reconveyance and Damages thus within the jurisdiction of RTC. 2. Whether or not the Donation Propter Nuptias is valid.
Held:
1. No. Issue regarding the impairment of legitime of Fortunato Doronio must be resolved in an action for the settlement of estates of spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante. It may not be passed upon in an action for reconveyance and damages. A probate court, in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction, is the best forum
to ventilate and adjudge the issue of impairment of legitime as well as other related matters involving the settlement of estate.40
An action for reconveyance with damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding. Special proceedings require the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Under Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, questions as to advancement made or alleged to have been made by the deceased to any heir may be heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings, and the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on the heir. While it may be true that the Rules used the word "may," it is nevertheless clear that the same provision contemplates a probate court when it speaks of the "court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings ."Corollarily, the Regional Trial Court in the instant case, acting in its general jurisdiction, is devoid of authority to render an adjudication and resolve the issue of advancement of the real property .
Before any conclusion about the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, it is necessary that certain steps be taken first.43 The net estate of the decedent must be ascertained, by deducting all payable obligations and charges from the value of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his death; then, all donations subject to collation would be added to it. With the partible estate thus determined, the legitime of the compulsory heir or heirs can be established; and only then can it be ascertained whether or not a donation had prejudiced the legitimes.
2. No.1avvphi1 It is settled that only laws existing at the time of the execution of a contract are applicable to it and not the later statutes, unless the latter are specifically intended to have retroactive effect. Accordingly, the Old Civil Code applies in this case as the donation propter nuptias was executed in 1919, while the New Civil Code took effect only on August 30, 1950. Under the Old Civil Code, donations propter nuptias must be made in a public instrument in which the property donated must be specifically described.
In the instant case, the donation propter nuptias did not become valid since it is made in a private instrument. Neither did it create any right because it was not made in a public instrument.74 Hence, it conveyed no title to the land in question to petitioners‘ predecessors.
However, as of this time, direct reconveyance to any of the parties is not possible as it has not yet been determined in a proper proceeding who among the heirs of spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante is entitled to it. It is still unproven whether or not the parties are the only ones entitled to the properties of spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante. As earlier intimated, there are still things to be done before the legal share of all the heirs can be properly adjudicated.
BERNARDO vs. CA February 28, 1963 Facts:
EusebioCapili and Hermogena Reyes were husband and wife. Eusebio died and his properties were disposed in his will to his wife Hermogena and his 6 cousins which included Deogracias Bernardo, the executor. The wife died and she was substituted by her collateral relatives, upon executor Bernardo's petition. Petitioner-executor filed his project of partition, but was opposed by collateral relatives claiming that ½ of the properties disposed of in the will are part of the spouses‘ conjugal partnership. Probate court heard evidence. Petitioner contended that it was donated by the wife to the husband so it was not part of CPG and that the oppositors cannot question the validity of the donation in the probate proceedings. Oppositors rebutted that since it was donated during marriage, it was void; hence, the husband did not own it and cannot dispose it by will. Probate court ordered the donation voided and that executor submit another project of partition. Petitioner filed Motion for New trial (MNT) on the ground that probate court had no jurisdiction, but was denied. Petitioner filed for appeal to CA, but was also denied. Hence, this petition for review by certiorari before the SC.
Issue:
Whether or not a probate court can determine a question of ownership over property during distribution.
Held:
YES. Probate court has to liquidate the conjugal partnership to determine the testator's estate to be distributed to the heirs who are parties to the proceedings.
As a general rule, question as to title to property cannot be passed upon on testate or intestate proceedings," except:
a. where one of the parties prays merely for the inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of the property, in which case the probate court may pass provisionally upon the question without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action.
b. when the parties interested are all heirs of the deceased, it is optional to them to submit to the probate court a question as to title to property, and when so submitted, said probate court may definitely pass judgment thereon
c. all parties give consent so that matters affecting property under judicial administration may be taken cognizance of by the court in the course of intestate proceeding, provided interests of third persons are not prejudiced
ANCHETA VS. DALAYGON G.R. 139868
Facts:
Spouses Audrey O‘Neill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were American citizens who have resided in the Philippines for 30 years. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle Guersey Hill (Kyle). Audrey died, leaving a will and she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard (husband), who was also designated as executor. The will was admitted to probate before the Orphan‘s Court of Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A, which named James N. Phillips as executor due to Richard‘s renunciation of his appointment. The court also named Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta (petitioner) of the QuashaAsperilla Ancheta Pena &Nolasco Law Offices as ancillary administrator.
Richard married CandelariaGuersey-Dalaygon (respondent) with whom he has two children, namely, Kimberly and Kevin.
Audrey‘s will was also admitted reprobate by then to Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 25, Seventh Judicial District, Pasig, in Special Proceeding. As administrator of Audrey‘s estate in the Philippines, petitioner filed an inventory and appraisal of the following properties: (1) Audrey‘s conjugal share in real estate with improvements located at Forbes Park, Makati, Metro Manila, (Makati property); (2) a current bank account in Audrey‘s name; and (3) shares of stock.
Richard died, leaving a will, wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to respondent, save for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares, which he left to Kyle. The will was also admitted to probate by the Orphan‘s Court of Ann Arundel, Maryland, U.S.A, and James N. Phillips was likewise appointed as executor, who in turn, designated Atty. William Quasha or any member of the QuashaAsperillaAncheta Pena &NolascoLaw Offices, as ancillary administrator.
Richard‘s will was then submitted for probate before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 138, Atty. Ancheta was appointed as ancillary administrator.
Petitioner filed in Special Proceeding, a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey and project of partition of Audrey‘s estate, with Richard being apportioned the ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property, 48.333 shares in A/G Interiors, Inc., and P9,313.48 from the Citibank current account; and Kyle, the ¼ undivided interest in the Makati property, 16,111 shares in A/G Interiors, Inc., and P3,104.49 in cash.
The motion and project of partition was granted and approved by the trial court and directing the Register of Deeds of Makati to cancel TCT No. 69792 in the name of Richard and to issue a new title in the joint names of the Estate of W. Richard Guersey (¾ undivided interest) and Kyle (¼ undivided interest); directing the Secretary of A/G Interiors, Inc. to transfer 48.333 shares to the Estate of W. Richard Guersey and 16.111 shares to Kyle; and
directing the Citibank to release the amount of P12,417.97 to the ancillary administrator for distribution to the heirs.12
Meanwhile, the ancillary administrator in Special Proceeding also filed a project of partition wherein 2/5 of Richard‘s ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property was allocated
to respondent, while 3/5 thereof were allocated to Richard‘s three children. This was opposed
by respondent on the ground that under the law of the State of Maryland, "a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property subject of the legacy. Since Richard left his entire estate to respondent, except for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc, shares, then his entire ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property should be given to respondent.
The trial court found merit in respondent‘s opposition, and in its Order disapproved the project of partition insofar as it affects the Makati property. The trial court also adjudicated Richard‘s entire ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property to respondent.
Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) an amended complaint for the annulment of the trial court‘s Orders. Respondent contended that petitioner willfully breached his fiduciary duty when he disregarded the laws of the State of Maryland on the distribution of Audrey‘s estate in accordance with her will. Respondent argued that since Audrey devised her entire estate to Richard, then the Makati property should be wholly adjudicated to him, and not merely ¾ thereof, and since Richard left his entire estate, except for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc., to respondent, then the entire Makati property should now pertain to respondent.
CA annulled the trial court‘s Order, petitioner filed motion for reconsideration, but this was denied by the CA and they filed a petition for review.
Issue:
WON the Petitioner commits a fraud in the performance of duties as Ancillary Administrator of Audrey‘s Estate?
Held:
Petitioner is the ancillary administrator of Audrey‘s estate. As such, he occupies a position of the highest trust and confidence, and he is required to exercise reasonable diligence and act in entire good faith in the performance of that trust. Although he is not a guarantor or insurer of the safety of the estate nor is he expected to be infallible, yet the same degree of prudence, care and judgment which a person of a fair average capacity and ability exercises in similar transactions of his own, serves as the standard by which his conduct is to be judged.
Petitioner‘s failure to proficiently manage the distribution of Audrey‘s estate according to the terms of her will and as dictated by the applicable law amounted to extrinsic fraud.
Audrey‘ s was an American citizen domiciled in Maryland U.S.A and she was residing in the Phil. The last Will and Testament probate before the MaryLand Court and reprobate in the Phil. Court. Clear showing that petitioner knows the national law of the decedent.
Well-intentioned though it may be, defendant Alonzo H. Ancheta‘s action appears to have breached his duties and responsibilities as ancillary administrator of the subject estate. While such breach of duty admittedly cannot be considered extrinsic fraud under ordinary circumstances, the fiduciary nature of the said defendant’s position, as well as the resultant frustration of the decedent’s last will, combine to create a circumstance that is tantamount to extrinsic fraud. Defendant Alonzo H. Ancheta‘s omission to prove the national laws of the decedent and to follow the latter‘s last will, in sum, resulted in the procurement of the subject orders without a fair submission of the real issues involved in the case.
Being a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of Audrey‘s will, especially with regard as to who are her heirs, is governed by her national law, i.e., the law of the State of Maryland, as provided in Article 16 of the Civil Code, to wit:
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. (Emphasis supplied)
Article 1039 of the Civil Code further provides that "capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent."
As a corollary rule, Section 4, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court on Allowance of Will Proved Outside the Philippines and Administration of Estate Thereunder, states:
SEC. 4. Estate, how administered.—Whena will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and such letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as such will may operate upon it; and the residue, if any, shall be disposed of as is provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country.
Petitioner is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as an official of the court.
QUASHA ANCHETA PEÑA AND NOLASCO LAW OFFICE FOR ITS OWN BEHALF, AND REPRESENTING THE HEIRS OF RAYMOND TRIVIERE vs. LCN
CONSTRUCTION CORP. 7. G.R. No. 174873, August 26, 2008
Raymond Triviere passed away, a proceedings for the settlement of his intestate estate were instituted by his widow, Amy Consuelo Triviere. Atty. Enrique P. Syquia (Syquia) and Atty. William H. Quasha (Quasha) of the Quasha Law Office, representing the widow and children of the late Raymond Triviere, respectively, were appointed administrators of the estate of the deceased.As administrators, Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha incurred expenses for the payment of real estate taxes, security services, and the preservation and administration of theestate, as well as litigation expenses. Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha filed before the RTC a Motion for Payment of their litigation expenses. Citing their failure to submit an accounting of the assets and liabilities of the estate under administration, the RTC denied in May 1995 the Motion for Payment of Atty. Syquia and Atty.Quasha.
In 1996, Atty. Quasha also passed away. Atty. Redentor Zapata (Zapata), also of the Quasha Law Office, took over as the counsel of the Triviere children, and continued to help Atty. Syquia in the settlement of the estate. On 6 September 2002, Atty. Syquia and Atty. Zapata filed another Motion for Payment, for their own behalf and for their respective clients, claiming for the payment of attorney‘s fees and litigation expenses.
LCN, as the only remaining claimant against the Intestate Estate of the Late Raymond Triviere in Special Proceedings Case No. M-1678, filed its Comment on/Opposition to the afore-quoted Motion on 2 October 2002.
LCN contends that RTC had already resolved the issue of payment of litigation expenses when it denied the first Motion for Payment filed by Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha for failure of the administrators to submit an accounting of the assetsand expenses of the estate as required by the court. LCN also averred that the administrators and the heirs of the late RaymondTriviere had earlier agreed to fix the former's fees at only 5% of the gross estate, based on which, per the computation of LCN, the administrators were even overpaid P55,000.00 contrary to what was stated in the second Motion for Payment, Section 7, Rule85 of the Revised Rules of Court was inapplicable, since the administrators failed to establish that the estate was large, or that its settlement was attended with great difficulty, or required a high degree of capacity on the part of the administrators. Its claims are still outstanding and chargeable against the estate of the late Raymond Triviere thus, no distribution should be allowed until they have been paid
Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES IN FAVOR OF THE CO-ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN NULLIFIED
Held:
Nothing in the records, however, reveals that any one of the lawyers of Quasha Law Office was indeed a substitute administrator for Atty. Quasha upon his death.
The court has jurisdiction to appoint an administrator of an estate by granting letters of administration to a person not otherwise disqualified or incompetent to serve as such, following the procedure laid down in Section 6, Rule 78 of theRules of Court.
Corollary thereto, Section 2, Rule 82 of the Rules of Court provides in clear and unequivocal terms the modes for replacing an administrator of an estate upon the death of an
administrator, to wit: Section 2. Court may remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator. Proceedings upon death, resignation, or removal.
When an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed the remaining executor or administrator may administer the trust alone, unless the court grants letters to someone to act with him. If there is no remaining executor or administrator, administration may be granted to any suitable person.
The records of the case are wanting in evidence that Quasha Law Office or any of its lawyers substituted Atty. Quasha as co-administrator of the estate. None of the documents attached pertain to the issuance of lettersof administration to petitioner Quasha Law Office or any of its lawyers at anytime after the demise of Atty. Quasha in 1996.
This Court is thus inclined to give credence to petitioner's contention that while it rendered legal services for the settlement of the estate of Raymond Triviere since the time of Atty. Quasha's death in 1996, it did not serve as co-administrator thereof, granting that it was never even issued letters of administration.
The attorney's fees, therefore, cannot be covered by the prohibition in the third paragraph of Section 7, Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of Court against anattorney, to charge against the estate professional fees for legal services rendered by them. However, while petitioner Quasha Law Office, serving as counsel of the Triviere children from the time of death of Atty. Quasha in 1996, is entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses of P100,000.00 as prayed for in the Motion for Payment dated 3 September 2002, and as awarded by the RTC in its 12 June2003 Order, the same may be collected from the shares of the Triviere children, upon final distribution of the estate, in consideration of the fact that the Quasha Law Office, indeed, served as counsel (not anymore as co-administrator), representing and performing legal services for the Triviere children in the settlement of the estate of their deceased father.
Ariagavda. De Guerrea, Et al. vs. Suplico G.R. No 144320, April 26, 2006
Facts:
Ricardo Gurrea, represented by and through his counsel Atty. Enrique Suplico (the defendant), filed an Opposition in Special Proc. No. 7185. Inconsideration of said representation, Ricardo Gurrea agreed to pay Atty. Suplico "a contingent fee of twenty (20%) of whatever is due me, either real or personal property" . During the pendency of the proceedings and upon the oral instructions of Ricardo Gurrea, Atty. Supliconegotiated with the other heirs of AdelinaGurrea regarding the transfer of the piso (apartment building) in Spain to Ricardo Gurrea‘s daughter, Juliet Gurrea de Melendres. Ricardo Gurrea further instructed Atty. Suplico not to enter into any settlement with the heirs unless the piso is
transferred to his daughter. Finally, the transfer of the piso worth P64,000.00 was executed and the heirs arrived at an amicable settlement regarding the estate of AdelinaGurrea. Hence, Ricardo Gurrea withdrew his Opposition and the heirs then drew up a project of partition which was eventually approved by the probate court.
As payment of his attorney‘s fees, Ricardo Gurrea offered the San Juan lot to Atty. Suplico who was initially hesitant to accept the same as the property is occupied by squatters. However, in order not to antagonize his client, Atty. Suplico agreed to Ricardo Gurrea‘s proposal with the further understanding that he will receive an additional commission of 5% if he sells the Baguio property. Thereafter, the deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest was drafted. The said deed was presented to Ricardo Gurrea for his signature.
On August 20, 1975, the deed was finally signed by Ricardo Gurrea at the office of Atty. Pama, in the presence of the latter, Atty. Suplico, Victor Tupas and another person, the last two acting as witnesses.Later, on October 7, 1980, Atty. Suplico registered the deed and obtained a title/TCT to the San Juan property under his name. Ricardo Gurrea died on October 22, 1980. After his death, his heirs instituted Special Pro. No. 2722 for the settlement of Ricardo Gurrea‘s estate.
In the said proceedings, Atty. Suplico filed several claims for unpaid attorney‘s fees (no claim was filed relative to Special Proc. No. 7185); however, all were dismissed withfinality . Also in the same case, the estate‘s administrator, Carlos Gurrea, filed an Inventory of Properties left by the decedent, which did not initially include the property subject of this case. The said lot was included only subsequently in the Amended Inventory.
Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT, ASSUMING THE ‗TRANSFER OF RIGHTS AND INTERESTS‘ DULY EXECUTED BY RICARDO GURREA VIOLATES ARTICLE 1491 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE AND, THEREFORE, NULL AND VOID.
Held:
Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code provides:1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the
act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. According to the evidence for the defendant, a Motion for Termination of Proceeding and Discharge of the Executor and Bond dated June 20, 1975was filed in the case, alleging in paragraphs 3 and 5 thereof, that the executor Angel E. Ordoñez has already turned over to the respective heirs and devisees all their respective shares in accordance with the Project of Partition duly approved by the Court. Thereafter, more than one month from the filing thereof, the Transfer of Rights and Interest was executed on August 20, 1975. Hence, at the time of the execution of the questioned document, it may be concluded that Special Proceedings No. 7185 had been terminated. The property in San Juan is no longer the subject of a litigation and may be alienated by the client to his lawyer as payment of attorney‘s fees rendered. It is clear from the above-quoted ruling of the trial court that its sole basis in concluding that Special Proceedings No. 7185 had been terminated and that the subject property is no longer the object of litigation at the time the deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest was executed on August 20, 1975 is the allegation of the executor, Angel E. Ordoñez, in his Motion for Termination of Proceeding and Discharge of the Executor and Bond dated June 20, 1975, that he had already turned over to the respective heirs and devisees all their respective shares in accordance with the project of partition duly approved by the probate court.
In the present case, there is no proof to show that at the time the deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest was executed, the probate court had issued an order granting the Motion for Termination of Proceeding and Discharge of the Executor and Bond. Since the judge has yet to act on the above-mentioned motion, it follows that the subject property which is the subject matter of the deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest, is still the object of litigation, that is Special Proceedings No. 7185. Furthermore, we agree with the petitioners‘ undisputed contention that when the deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest was executed, the title over the subject lot was still in the name of AdelinaGurrea and that it was only on October 7, 1980 that the title was transferred in the name of Ricardo. The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. In the present case, while the subject lot was assigned as Ricardo‘s share in the project of partition executed by the heirs of AdelinaGurrea, the title over the subject lot was still in the name of the latter and was not yet conveyed to Ricardo when the Transfer of Rights and Interest was executed. It having been established that the subject property was still the object of litigation at the time the subject deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest was executed, the assignment of rights and interest over the subject property in favor of respondent is null and void for being violative of the provisions of Article 1491 of the Civil Code which expressly prohibits lawyers from acquiring property or rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
TIMBOL V. CANO Facts:
Mercedes Cano died leaving her only son FlorantoTimbol as sole heir. Her brother, Jose Cano, was appointed judicial administrator. Jose proposed that the agricultural lands of the estate be leased to him at P4,000 which was approved by the court. The court later on approved the reduction of rent to P2,400 and the conversion of some of the agricultural lands to a subdivision. A year later, a project of partition was approved by court designating Florante as the sole heir and he was appointed judicial administrator. He then proposed moved that the area designated for the subdivision be increased but was opposed by Jose because the enlargement of the subdivision would reduce the land leased to him and his tenants will lose their landholdings. Nevertheless, the court approved Florante‘s petition hence the case at bar.
Issue:
WON the probate court has jurisdiction to annul rights under the contract of lease though it would prejudice the lessee
Held:
Yes. In probate proceedings, the court orders the probate of the will of the decedent, grants letters of administration of the party best entitled thereto, supervises and controls all acts of administration, hears and approves claims against the estate of the deceased, orders payment of lawful debts, authorizes sale, mortgage, or any encumbrance or real estate, directs the delivery of the estate to those entitled. The lease was obtained with the court‘s approval hence if the probate court has the right to approve the lease, so may it order its revocation or reduction of the subject of the lease.
And though lessee may be prejudiced by the reduction, reduction alone cannot bar the reduction of the land leased because such reduction is necessary to raise funds to pay and liquidate the debts of the estate under administration.
JUANITA LOPEZ GUILAS vs JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA AND ALEJANDRO LOPEZ
G.R. No. L-26695 January 31, 1972
Facts:
Jacinta Limson de Lopez was married to Alejandro Lopez y Siongco. They had no children but they have legally adopted Juanita Lopez then single but now married to Federico Guilas. Before the adoption of Juanita, Jacinta executed a will instituting her husband
Alejandro as her sole heir and executor. Doña Jacinta did not execute another will or codicil so as to include Juanita Lopez as one of her heirs.
Nevertheless, in a project of partition executed by both Alejandro Lopez and Juanita Lopez Guilas, the right of Juanita Lopez to inherit from Jacinta was recognized and Lots Nos. 3368 and 3441, both situated in Bacolor Pampanga — were adjudicated to Juanita Lopez-Guilas as her share in the estate of Dona Jacinta. The rest of the estate of the deceased was allotted to Don Alejandro.
On April 23, 1960, the trial court approved the said project of partition and on August 28, 1961, the same court approved the correction of clerical errors appearing in the project of partition. On April 10, 1964, Juanita filed a separate ordinary action to compel Alejandro to deliver immediately to her lots nos. 3368 and 3441 which were allocated to her under the project of partition.
Alejandro opposed and claims that by virtue of the order dated April 23, 1960 and order of December 15, 1960 which "ordered closed and terminated the present case", the testate proceedings had already been closed and terminated; and that Juanita Lopez is guilty of laches and negligence in filing the petition of the delivery of her share 4 years after such closure of the estate, when she could have filed a petition for relief of judgment within sixty (60) days from December 15, 1960 under Rule 38 of the old Rules of Court.
Juanita contends that the actual delivery and distribution of the hereditary shares to the heirs, and not the order of the court declaring as closed and terminated the proceedings, determines the termination of the probate proceedings; and that she is not guilty of laches, because when she filed on July 20, 1964, her petition for the delivery of her share allocated to her under the project of partition, less than 3 years had elapsed from August 28, 1961 when the amended project of partition was approved, which is within the 5-year period for the execution of judgment by motion .
The trial court issued an order suspending the consideration of the action for delivery of the shares considering that the action for the annulment of the project of partition is a prejudicial question. Juanita then filed an amended complaint on the action for delivery, where she acknowledges the partial legality and validity of the project of partition insofar as the allocation in her favor of the Lots Nos. 3368 and 3441, the delivery of which she is seeking. She then filed a motion seeking to set aside the order suspending the consideration of the action for delivery on the ground that she already admitted the partial legality and validity of the project of partition and it is longer a prejudicial question to her petition of July 20, 1964 for the delivery of her share.
The trial court denied Juanita's motion on the ground that the parties themselves agreed to suspend resolution of her petition for the delivery of her shares until after the civil action for annulment of the project of partition has been finally settled and decided. The MR was denied
Issue:
WON Juanita is guilty of latches. Held:
NO. The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. The finality of the approval of the project of partition by itself alone does not terminate the probate proceeding. As long as the order of the distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated; because a judicial partition is not final and conclusive and does not prevent the heir from bringing an action to obtain his share, provided the prescriptive period therefor has not elapsed. The better practice, however, for the heir who has not received his share, is to demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate or administration proceedings, or for re-opening of the probate or administrative proceedings if it had already been closed, and not through an independent action, which would be tried by another court or Judge which may thus reverse a decision or order of the probate on intestate court already final and executed and re-shuffle properties long ago distributed and disposed of.
Section 1 of Rule 90 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964 as worded, which secures for the heirs or legatees the right to "demand and recover their respective shares from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his possession", re-states the aforecited doctrines.
In the case at bar, the motion filed by petitioner for the delivery of her share was filed on July 20, 1964, which is just more than 3 years from August 28, 1961 when the amended project of partition was approve and within 5 years from April 23, 1960 when the original project of partition was approved. Clearly, her right to claim the two lots allocated to her under the project of partition had not yet expired. And in the light of Section 1 of Rule 90 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964 and the jurisprudence above cited, the order dated December 15, 1960 of the probate court closing and terminating the probate case did not legally terminate the testate proceedings, for her share under the project of partition has not been delivered to her.
RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and NELIA S. SILVERIO-DEE
Facts:
The instant controversy stemmed from the settlement of estate of the deceased Beatriz Silverio. After her death, her surviving spouse, Ricardo Silverio, Sr., filed an intestate
proceeding for the settlement of her estate.
On November 16, 2004, during the pendency of the case, Ricardo Silverio, Jr. filed a petition to remove Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. as the administrator of the subject estate. On January 3, 2005, the RTC issued an Order granting the petition and removing Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator of the estate, while appointing Ricardo Silverio, Jr. as the new administrator. On January 26, 2005, Nelia S. Silverio-Dee filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated January 3, 2005, as well as all other related orders.
On May 31, 2005, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order ordering NeliaSilverio-Dee to vacate the premises of the property located at No. 3, Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati City. She received a copy of the said Order on June 8, 2005. Instead of filing a Notice of Appeal and
Record on Appeal, private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order. This motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated December 12, 2005. This Order was received by private respondent on December 22, 2005. On January 6, 2006, private respondent filed her Notice of Appeal while she filed her Record on Appeal on January 23, 2006.
Thus, on April 2, 2007, the RTC issued an Order denying the appeal on the ground that it was not perfected within the reglementary period. The RTC further issued a writ of execution for the enforcement of the Order dated May 31, 2005 against private respondent to vacate the premises. Consequently, private respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition dated May 2, 2007 with the CA. On May 4, 2007, the CA issued the assailed Resolution granting the prayer for the issuance of a TRO.
Issue:
W/N the Omnibus Order dated May 31, 2005 and the Order dated December 12, 2005 are Interlocutory Orders which are not subject to appeal under Sec. 1 of Rule 41.
Held:
The Orders are interlocutory and thus, cannot be appealed.
The denial of due course by the RTC was based on two (2) grounds: (1) that NeliaSilverio-Dee‘s appeal was against an order denying a motion for reconsideration which is disallowed under Sec. 1(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court; and (2) that NeliaSilverio-Dee‘s Record on Appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period to file an appeal provided under Sec. 3 of Rule 41.
Petitioner argues that because private respondent filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order dated December 12, 2005 which denied her motion for reconsideration of the Omnibus Order dated May 31, 2005, her appeal is of an order denying a motion for reconsideration. Thus, petitioner alleges that private respondent employed the wrong remedy in filing a notice of appeal and should have filed a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court instead.
A final order is one that disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a
particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court, while an interlocutory order is one which does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon.
Additionally, it is only after a judgment has been rendered in the case that the ground for the appeal of the interlocutory order may be included in the appeal of the judgment itself. The interlocutory order generally cannot be appealed separately from the judgment. It is only when such interlocutory order was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion that certiorari under Rule 65 may be resorted to.
In the instant case, NeliaSilverio-Dee appealed the May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC on the ground that it ordered her to vacate the premises of the property located at No. 3 Intsia Road,
Forbes Park, Makati City. On that aspect the order is not a final determination of the case or of the issue of distribution of the shares of the heirs in the estate or their rights therein. The purported authority of NeliaSilverio-Dee, which she allegedly secured from Ricardo Silverio, Sr., was never approved by the probate court. She, therefore, never had any real interest in the specific property located at No. 3 IntsiaRoad,Forbes Park, Makati City. As such, the May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC must be considered as interlocutory and, therefore, not subject to an appeal. Thus, private respondent employed the wrong mode of appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Hence, for employing the improper mode of appeal, the case should have been dismissed.
The implication of such improper appeal is that the notice of appeal did not toll the
reglementary period for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the proper remedy in the instant case. This means that private respondent has now lost her remedy of appeal from the May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC.
Mari and Evangelista vs. Bonilla and Ordañez March 19, 1949
FACTS:
Casimiro Evangelista is a registered owner of a parcel of land (homestead) as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. 4905, of the register of deeds of Nueva Ecija, consisting of 7.0652 hectares, more or less situated at Valdefuente, Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija. He was married to Leonida Mari, plaintiff herein on February 7, 1920 at Rizal, Nueva Ecija, and during their marriage and while living together as spouses, they begot two children, Caridad and Deogracias Evangelista. He died intestate.
On January 10, 1944, Deogracias Evangelista alleging to be the only heir of Casimiro Evangelista, executed a declaration of heirship known as Doe. No. 9, Page 30, Book No. 18, of Notary Public, Carlos M. Ferrer. For the sum of P2,400, Deogracias Evangelista sold on the same date, the property in question to the defendants, spouses, Isaac Bonilla and Silvina Ordafiez. Original certificate of title No. 4905 was cancelled and in lieu thereof transfer certificate of title No. 19991 was issued to the spouses.
This action was brought to recover Leonida Mari and Caridad Evangelista‘s combined 3/4, share in the parcel of land sold by Deogracias. The defendants did not know that Leonida Mari is the mother of Deogracias Evangelista at the time when he bought the land as
Deogracias Evangelista was living with his grandfather, Matias Evangelista; and that Caridad Evangelista was living with her mother, Leonida Mari;
ISSUES:
(2) WON the judicial partition in favor of Deogracias bound Leonida Mari and Caridad Evangelista. – NO
HELD:
(1) Good faith affords protection only to purchasers for value from the registered owner. Deogracias Evangelista, defendants' grantor, is not a registered owner. The land was and still is registered in the name of Casimiro Evangelista. In no way does the certificate of title state that Deogracias owned the land; consequently defendants cannot summon to their aid the theory of indefeasibility of Torrens title. There is nothing in the certificate and in the circumstances of the transaction which warrant. them in supposing that they needed not looked beyond the title. If anything, it should have put them on their guard, cautioned them to ascertain and verify that the vendor was the only heir of his father, that there was no debt, and that the latter was the sole owner of the parcel.
(2) If, as is probably the case, defendants relied on the court's order adjudicating to
Deogracias Evangelista the entire estate in the distribution held under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, their innocence avails them less as against the true owners of the land.
That was a summary settlement made on the faith and strength of the distributee's self-serving affidavit; and section 4 of the above-mentioned rule provides that, "If it shall appear at
anytime within two years after the settlement and distribution of an estate that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the court in the manner herein provided for the purpose of satisfying such participation." Far from shielding defendants against loss, the adjudication and the rule under which it was made gave them a clear warning that they were acting at their peril. "A judicial partition in probate proceedings does not bind the heirs who were not parties thereto. No partition, judicial or extrajudicial, could add one iota or particle to the interest which the partitioners had during the joint possession.
Partition is of the nature of a conveyance of ownership, and certainly none of the co-owners may convey to the others more than his own true right. A judicial partition in probate proceedings is not final and conclusive, and not being of such definitive character as to stop all means of redress for a co- heir who has been deprived of his lawful share, such co-heir may still, within the prescriptive period, bring an action for reivindicacion in the province where any of the real property of the deceased may be situated. Broad perspectives of public policy are set out in the opinion of the court in support of the wisdom of allowing a co-heir the benefits of the law of prescription even after a partition, judicial or extrajudicial, has been had." (Lajom vs. Viola, 73 Phil., 563.)
Vda De Lopez vs Lopez 35 SCRA 81
Facts:
On October 13, 1962 Saturnina M. Vda.de Lopez, judicial administratrix of the estate of the deceased, filed with the lower court a project of partition adjudicating the whole to herself and her legitimate children with the deceased. The lower court approved the project of partition and declared the intestate proceeding "terminated and closed for all legal purposes." Seventeen days thereafter, the minors Dahlia and Roy, both surnamed Lopez, represented by their mother, Lolita B. Bachar, filed a motion to reopen the proceeding, together with a petition claiming that they were illegitimate children of the deceased Emilio Lopez, born out of his extra-marital relations with Lolita B. Bachar, and asking that their rights as such be recognized and their shares in the estate given to them. The motion was opposed by the judicial administratrix on the ground that the proceeding had already been ordered terminated and closed and the estate was already in the hands of the distributees; and that the reopening of the intestate proceeding was not the proper remedy, which should be an independent action against the individual distributees..
Issues:
(1) whether or not the motion to reopen the estate proceeding was filed too late; and (2) whether or not such motion was the proper remedy.
Held:
1. The motion to reopen was not too late. The court's order declaring the intestate proceeding closed did not become final immediately upon its issuance. It was no different from judgments or orders in ordinary actions. Thus, Section 2 of Rule 72 provides that "in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in Special Proceedings." And judgments or orders in ordinary actions become final after thirty (30) days from notice to the party concerned. In this case appellants' motion to reopen was led only seventeen (17) days from the date of the order of closure. The remedy was therefore invoked on time.
2.In the recent case of Uriarte vs. Uriarte, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21938-39, May 29, 1970, this Court, thru Justice Arsenio Dizon, pointed out that there are two alternatives for an acknowledged natural child to prove his status and interest in the estate of the deceased parent, to wit: (1) to intervene in the probate proceeding if it is still open; and (2) to ask for its reopening if it has already been closed.
Demands and claims filed by any heir, legatee or party in interest to a testate or intestate succession, shall be acted upon and decided in the same special proceedings, and not in a separate action, and the judge who has jurisdiction over the administration of the inheritance, and who, when the time comes, will be called upon to divide and adjudicate it to the interested parties, shall take cognizance of all such questions.
Nuñal v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 94005 FACTS:
Case arose from a Civil Case filed by one Emma Lyon de Leon in her behalf and as guardian ad litem of the minors Helen Sabarra and Kenny Sabarre, against Nuñal (now deceased), as represented by her heirs. The subject parcel of land is located in Isabela, Basilan City, subject for partition, to which Luisa Nuñal was in possession since 1946. She made no accounting of the income derived from the property. It was petitioned that the decisions be turned in their favor as Luisa is not a legitimate child. Hence the petition that the right over the subject property be given to Lyon-de Leon and not of Nuñal‘sheirs, be
overturned. ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC has no jurisdiction over the matter and , and may not be amended, or modified?
RULING:
REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT; ONCE IT BECOMES FINAL, MAY NO LONGER BE MODIFIED IN ANY RESPECT; EXCEPTIONS. — In the case of Manning International Corporation v. NLRC, (195 SCRA 155, 161 [1991]) We held that ". . ., nothing is more settled in the law than that when a final judgment becomes
executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardle
ss of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the Court rendering it or by the highest Court of land. The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and, of course, where the judgment is void." Furthermore, "(a)ny amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose."
Intestate Estate of the deceased Lee Liong. RAFAEL A. DINGLASAN, ET ALS. v.s. ANG CHIA, as Administratrix of the above intestate, LEE BING HOO alias CLARO
LEE, and LEE BUN TING
Rafael Dinglasan filed a civil case in the CFI of Capiz against Ang Chia, her son Claro Lee and one Lee Bun Ting to recover the ownership and possession of a parcel of land located in Capiz. He also filed a motion for the appointment of a receiver. The counsel for defendants objected on the basis that there was a pending case in the same court concerning the intestate estate of Lee Liong. The plaintiffs withdrew the motion and filed an amended complaint seeking the inclusion of Ang Chia (widow), the administratix of the estate, as a party-defendant. The plaintiffs also filed in the intestate proceedings a verified claim in intervention and a motion praying that a co-administrator of the estate be appointed and the bond of the administratrix be increased. The plaintiffs made of record the pendency of the civil case and prayed that the intestate proceedings be not closed until said civil case shall have been terminated. Thereafter, the administratrix filed a motion to dismiss the claim in intervention and objected to the motions made by the plaintiffs. The trial court denied the petition for a co-administrator but increased the bond to P5,000 and stated that it would act thereon if a motion to close the intestate proceedings is presented in due time and is objected to by petitioners. It also took cognizance of the pendency of said civil case. The administratrix did not appeal from said order nor file a new bond and instead moved for the closing of the proceedings and her discharge as administratrix on the ground that the heirs had already entered into an extrajudicial partition of the estate. The petitioners objected. Subsequently, the CFI of Capiz issued in the intestate estate proceedings an order holding in abeyance the approval of their petition for an extra-judicial partition the closing of said proceedings until after the final termination of the civil case of the same court. Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
WON the lower court may hold the closing of the intestate proceedings pending the termination of the separate civil action.
Held:
Yes. A probate case may be held in abeyance pending determination of ordinary case because to hold otherwise would render some rules in the ROC nugatory. Section 1, Rule 88, of the Rules of Court, expressly provides that "action to recover real or personal property from the estate or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal, may be commenced against the executor or administrator" What practical value would this provision have if the action against the administrator cannot be prosecuted to its termination simply because the heirs desire to close the intestate proceedings without first taking any step to settle the ordinary civil case? This rule is but a corollary to the ruling which declares that questions concerning ownership of property alleged to be part of the estate but claimed by another person should be determined in a separate action and should be submitted to the court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction. Section 17, Rule 3 also implies that a probate case may be held in abeyance pending determination of an ordinary case wherein an administrator is made a party. To hold otherwise would be also to render said rule nugatory. Thus, the court is justified in taking cognizance of said civil case because of the unavoidable fact that whatever is determined in
said civil case will necessarily reflect and have a far reaching consequence in the determination and distribution of the estate.
LORENZO vs. POSADAS FACTS:
Thomas Hanley died, leaving a will and a considerable amount of real and personal properties. Proceedings for the probate of his will and the settlement and distribution of his estate were begun in the CFI of Zamboanga. The will was admitted to probate.
The CFI considered it proper for the best interests of the estate to appoint a trustee to administer the real properties which, under the will, were to pass to nephew Matthew ten years after the two executors named in the will was appointed trustee. Moore acted as trustee until he resigned and the plaintiff Lorenzo herein was appointed in his stead.
During the incumbency of the plaintiff as trustee, the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue (Posadas) assessed against the estate an inheritance tax, together with the penalties for deliquency in payment. Lorenzo paid said amount under protest, notifying Posadas at the same time that unless the amount was promptly refunded suit would be brought for its recovery. Posadas overruled Lorenzo‘s protest and refused to refund the said amount. Plaintiff went to court. The CFI dismissed Lorenzo‘s complaint and Posadas‘ counterclaim. Both parties appealed to this court.
*Plaintiff contends that the lower court erred:
In not allowing as lawful deductions, in the determination of the net amount of the estate subject to said tax, the amounts allowed by the court as compensation to the "trustees" and paid to them from the decedent's estate.
ISSUE:
WON in determining the net value of the estate subject to tax, is it proper to deduct the compensation due to trustees?
RULING:
The SC modified the lower court‘s decision with respect to the deduction of compensation due to trustees.
Certain items are required by law to be deducted from the appraised gross in arriving at the net value of the estate on which the inheritance tax is to be computed (sec. 1539, Revised Administrative Code). In the case at bar, the defendant and the trial court allowed a deduction of only P480.81. This sum represents the expenses and disbursements of the executors until March 10, 1924, among which were their fees and the proven debts of the deceased. The plaintiff contends that the compensation and fees of the trustees, which aggregate P1,187.28 (Exhibits C, AA, EE, PP, HH, JJ, LL, NN, OO), should also be deducted under section 1539 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides, in part, as follows: "In order to
determine the net sum which must bear the tax, when an inheritance is concerned, there shall be deducted, in case of a resident, . . . the judicial expenses of the testamentary or intestate proceedings, . . . ."
A trustee, no doubt, is entitled to receive a fair compensation for his services (Barney vs. Saunders, 16 How., 535; 14 Law. ed., 1047). But from this it does not follow that the compensation due him may lawfully be deducted in arriving at the net value of the estate subject to tax. There is no statute in the Philippines which requires trustees' commissions to be deducted in determining the net value of the estate subject to inheritance tax (61 C. J., p. 1705). Furthermore, though a testamentary trust has been created, it does not appear that the testator intended that the duties of his executors and trustees should be separated. (Ibid.; In re Vanneck's Estate, 161 N. Y. Supp., 893; 175 App. Div., 363; In re Collard's Estate, 161 N. Y. Supp., 455.) On the contrary, in paragraph 5 of his will, the testator expressed the desire that his real estate be handled and managed by his executors until the expiration of the period of ten years therein provided. Judicial expenses are expenses of administration (61 C. J., p. 1705) but, in State vs. Hennepin County Probate Court (112 N. W., 878; 101 Minn., 485), it was said: ". . . The compensation of a trustee, earned, not in the administration of the estate, but in the management thereof for the benefit of the legatees or devises, does not come properly within the class or reason for exempting administration expenses. . . . Service rendered in that behalf have no reference to closing the estate for the purpose of a distribution thereof to those entitled to it, and are not required or essential to the perfection of the rights of the heirs or legatees. . . . Trusts . . . of the character of that here before the court, are created for the the benefit of those to whom the property ultimately passes, are of voluntary creation, and intended for the preservation of the estate. No sound reason is given to support the contention that such expenses should be taken into consideration in fixing the value of the estate for the purpose of this tax.
Salinas vs Tuazon GR No. 33626, March 2, 1931 FACTS:
On May 31, 1911, Francisco Salinas died in Spain who has been a resident of the Philippines. There were no records showing when he left the Philippines. Sometime in 1900, Salinas appointed TeodosioPintado y Fernandez as his attorney-in-fact to administer his properties with express authority to delegate his power as such attorney or to appoint his successor.
On April 24, 1905, Fernandez appointed Jose Moreno Lahaba to administer the properties of Salinas. Lahaba reported the administration of Salinas' properties. Upon the request of the heirs of Salinas through Spanish consul Vicente Palmalori, Lahaba stated that he only had in possession the amount of P2500 and ready to deliver to the heirs. Pending receipt, Lahaba died. Only P2500 was paid and delivered to the Salinas' heirs upon intestation proceedings of the deceased Lahaba.
Further inquiries were made by the heirs of Salinas and found out that on November 24, 1918, Lahaba sold two (2) parcels of land to Thomas Ortiz Luis paying only P5000 and subject to annual installments of P5000 mortgaged the remaining P25000 to secure its payment in favor of Lahaba. When Lahaba died, a balance of P20000 was still unpaid.
