D-9 RULE 85 CASES P ICAR DA L V .

LLA DAS Summary: Heirs of the Estate ejected the tenant from the premises. Tenant sued for damages, the heirs claim that the tenant should claim from the Estate. Court held that the Estate is not liable for damages incurred by the heirs of the estate. Facts: -AUREA BURGOS died 1941 -her estate was under judicial administration but property was not yet partitioned among the heirs (even pending this petition for review of CAR decision!) -in 1950, BERNARDO PICARDAL (husband of Aurea) made CENON LLADAS the tenant of their conjugal partnership property consisting of a 7 ha coconut plantation -VERBAL agreement: y 1/3 goes to LLADAS, 2/3 goes to PICARDAL y LLADAS would keep the coconut plantation clean -so Llardas entered into landholding, harvested the nuts, processed the copra and divided the harvest after selling it -1959: DEMETRIO SIRA was appointed as special administrator of AUREA BURGOS' estate. He wrote to Lladas that he should take good care of the plantation, and if he would fail to do so, the administrator would bring the corresponding action in accordance w/ tenancy law -1960: Lladas harvested coconuts, processed them into copra then sold to LIAN HONG COMPANY. However, LIAN HONG COMPANY informed B. PICARDAL that the copra sold to them was mixed w/ fresh coconut meat, therefore 16% of the weight was deducted for moisture content -the next month of the same year, LLADAS brought petition against B. PICARDAL, Cesar Montoya and Demetrio Sira (the special administrator) COA (PINAPAALIS SHA): y he had been a tenant since 1948 y He had already planted about 800 fruit-bearing trees on Picardal's land y That he and Picardal had been sharing the proceeds of the copra sales y That February 1960 (about the time when Lian Hong informed B. Picardal of what Lladas was doing), B. Picardal thru C. Montoya and D. Sira (special administrator) served on him notice to vacate 1/2 of land in favor of another tenant y He suffered damages >>>ANSWER: 1. landholding was property of Aurea Burgos and was subject to adminstration proceedings (under custodia legis) 2. The administrator had no information about the notice of ejectment (never notified Lladas to vacate the premises) -May 1960: Lladas harvested coconuts, processed them into copra, which was sold by B. Picardal to Lian Hong Company, from which Lladas received P645 as his share (parang wala lang a ) -October: Lladas amended his petition (NAPALAYAS NA SI LLADAS): 1. it was SEBASTIAN PICARDAL who ejected him from the property, w/ the knowledge of B. PICARDAL 2. He planted fruit trees on the land, and the produce was shared with B. PICARDAL 50-50 3. Due to the ejectment, he suffered damages >>>>ANSWER: 1|A s s i g n m e n t N o . 5 & 6 _Specpr o B_C ha Mendoza k

1. They did not eject Lladas 2. Lladas abandoned the landholding 3. It was only after he left when S. Picardal posted the No trespassing sign -later amended the petition again to replace SIRA w/ ROSALIA PENPENA, the new administratrix CAR: for LLADAS 1. Reinstate Lladas 2. Pay P4515 to Lladas w/ interest 3. Further pay P645 every 4 months during the period that Lladas has not been actually reinstated >>>MR: Denied >>>SO NOW PICARDAL FATHER AND SON APPEALS TO THE COURT 1. WON LLADAS WAS EJECTED? YES -the findings of facts of the Court of Agrarian Relations will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support them, and all that this Court is called upon to do insofar as the evidence is concerned, is to find out if the conclusion of the lower court is supported by substantial evidence -Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, as petitioners herein have done in quoting the contrary evidence consisting of the testimony of Sebastian Picardal, for the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the trial court in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief PICARDALs allegation Lladas was not ejected COURT Lladas was ejected sabi ng CAR so dapat maniwala kami 1. Picardals had more motive to oust Lladas than Lladas to leave the plantation: ...Picardal had reason to be irked with what Lladas did - mixing fresh coconut meat w/ dried copra 2. S. Picardal put up a sign board saying: "It is prohibited to whoever he is to take or to do anything with the coconuts, especially the squatters" 3. Lladas gets ~P1,860 a year from the plantation and spent his efforts on the plants in the said plantation 4. The homestead applied by Lladas was already transferred to a certain Cuidato.

-S. Picardal testified that Cenon voluntarily abandoned the landholding w/o advise to either father or the special administrator -Lladas left because he already had another piece of land -Lladas also left because he was ashamed to the special adminstrator who forbid hi to harvest coconuts 2x in 3 months

2. WON the damages assessed should be levied against the intestate estate, as the proceeds of the estate is in the hands of the administratrix? NO -at the time the petition , the entire conjugal property is under administration so the estate was the landlord of the landholding BUT THE FATHER AND SON SHOULD BE LIABLE (EVEN IF THERE ARE OTHER HEIRS):

a.

b.

c. d.

e. f.

The estate, as the landlord, is only liable for the illegal dispossession of the tenant if the estate was responsible for the unlawful ejectment of the tenant. If it was a 3P (i.e. the father and son), the 3P would be liable (RA 1199 - Agricultural Tenancy Act) The act of the father and son was not an act of the estate. The father and son is not the representative of the estate - the administrator is and he is not the one who pepetrated the ejectment. The administrator would be liable for ANY WASTE COMMITTED IN THE ESTATE THROUGH HIS NEGLIGENCE (R85.5) BUT NOT THE ESTATE The estate did not benefit from the dispossession because regardless of who the tenant was, the estate would receive a 2/3 share of the sales from the produce of the land. So cannot be ordered to pay the damages On the argument that they are not the only heirs (thus, they have co-owners): A coownership should not suffer the consequences of the unlawful act of any of the coowners (A501, NCC) Art 20, NCC: "every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same." - so the Picardal father and son, not the estate who did not do anything, should be responsible to pay for the damages!

DE GU ZMAN V . CAR I LLO Summary: some of the heirs contested some of the disbursements made by the appointed administrator. Court allowed expenses for the renovation and improvement of the family residence, the lawyer's subsistence and gift to physician who attended the testator during his last days, and the irrigation fees. Disallowed expenses by one of the heirs while living in the ancestral home and some other expenses. Facts: -Felix de Guzman of Gapan, Nueva Ecija died -heirs (8 children): y Victorino y Librada y Severino y Margarita y Josefina y Honorata y Arsenio y Crispina -will was probated -letters of administration issued to his son, VICTORINO (doctor sha, baka tanungin) -one of the properties left was the residential house located in the poblacion which was to be adjudicated to the 8 children in accordance w/ the project of partition -Dr. Victorino submitted 4 accounting reports. 3 of the heirs (Crispina, Honorata, and Arsenio) contested the disbursements -the disbursements made were approved by the lower court, in accordance w/ its earlier order that before disbursements are made, Dr. Victorino should first secure approval of the court I. Expense for the improvement and renovation of the decedent's residential house. 1. Construction of fence P3,082.07 2. Renovation of bathroom P1,389.52 3. Repair of terrace and interior of house P5,928.00 P10,399.59 II. Living expenses of Librada de Guzman while occupying the family home without paying rent: 1. For house helper P1,170.00 2. Light bills 227.41 2|A s s i g n m e n t N o . 5 & 6 _Specpr o B_C ha Mendoza k

3. Water bills 150.80 4. Gas oil, floor wax and switch nail 54.90 P 1,603.11 III. Other expenses: 1. Lawyer's subsistence P 19.30 2. Gratuity pay in lieu of medical fee 144.00 3. For stenographic notes 100.00 4. For food served on decedent's first death anniversary 166.65 5. Cost of publication of death anniversary of decedent 102.00 6. Representation expenses 26.25 P558.20 IV. Irrigation fee P1.049.58 TOTAL P13,610.48 WON the expenses are necessary expenses that the administrator is allowed to spend? PARTIALLY YES, PARTIALLY NO (look down for more specific explanation) -An executor or administrator is allowed the necessary expenses in the care, management, and settlement of the estate: y entitled to possess and manage the decedent's real and personal estate as long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and the expenses of administration. y accountable for the whole decedent's estate which has come into his possession, with all the interest, profit, and income thereof, and with the proceeds of so much of such estate as is sold by him, at the price at which it was sold (Sec. 3, Rule 84; Secs. 1 and 7, Rule 85, Rules of Court). -One of the Conditions of the administrator's bond is that he should render a true and just account of his administration to the court. The court may examine him upon oath With respect to every matter relating to his accounting 't and shall so examine him as to the correctness of his account before the same is allowed, except when no objection is made to the allowance of the account and its correctness is satisfactorily established by competent proof. The heirs, legatees, distributes, and creditors of the estate shall have the same privilege as the executor or administrator of being examined on oath on any matter relating to an administration account." (Sec. 1[c] Rule 81 and secs. 8 and 9, Rule 85, Rules of Court). -HEARING: A hearing is usually held before an administrator's account is approved, especially if an interested Party raises objections to certain items in the accounting report (Sec. 10, Rule 85). At that hearing, the practice is for the administrator to take the witness stand, testify under oath on his accounts and Identify the receipts, vouchers and documents evidencing his disbursements which are offered as exhibits. He may be interrogated by the court and crossed by the oppositors's counsel. The oppositors may present proofs to rebut the ad. administrator's evidence in support of his accounts. Expenses for the renovation and improvement of the family residence Repair of the terrace Repair of the interior of the family home Renovation of the bathroom Construction of fence -administration expenses: should be those which are necessary for the management of the estate, for protecting it against destruction or deterioration, and, possibly, for the production of fruits. ...expenses entailed for the preservation and productivity of the estate and its management for purposes of liquidation, payment of debts, and distribution of the residue among the persons entitled thereto. I.

y y y y

HERE: 5 of 8 heirs consented to the use of the funds of the estate for the repair and improvement of the family home. WHY SPEND FOR HOUSE RENOVATION: It is obvious that the expenses in question were incurred to preserve the family home and to maintain the family's social standing in the community. Obviously, those expenses redounded to the benefit of an the co- owners. They were necessary for the preservation and use of the family residence. As a result of those expenses, the co-owners, including the three oppositors, would be able to use the family home in comfort, convenience and security. II. EXPENSES INCURRED BY LIBRADA DE GUZMAN Salaries of house helper Light Water bills Cost of gas Cost of oil Floor wax Switch nail TC: allowed income of estate to be used for those expenses on the theory that the occupancy of the house by one heir DID NOT DEPRIVE THE OTHER 7 HEIRS FROM LIVING IN IT SC: Personal expenses of an heir, incurring to her benefit, are not reasonable expenses. She occupied the house w/o paying rent, she should use her income for her living expenses while occupying the family residence Other expenses Stenographic notes expenses - disallowed y Representation expenses (not explained) - disallowed y Expenses during the celebration of 1st death anniversary of the deceased - disallowed: y no connection w/ the care, management and settlement of the decedent's estate Expenses for lawyer's subsistence - allowed y Cost of gift to the physician who attended the testator during his last years - allowed y Irrigation Fee P1,049.58 was contested because it appeared to be a duplication of the item as y irrigation fee for crop year 66-67. - allowed because it was not contested that the amount was alloted for irrigation fees to 8 tenants who cultivated the Intan Crop and it was indeed paid by the administrator to the Penaranda Irrigation System

y y y y y y y

y Baldomero + *children with Ana Cuanci y Felipa y Manuel y Faustina -Baldomero died after Joaquin died - w/o heirs -Carlos Pabia hired Mariano Escueta - a lawyer - to procure the appointment of an administrator for BALDOMERO's ESTATE and to attend to the settlement of that estate in the CFI -so Mariano incurred expenses to procure administrator and work on the settlement of the estate -Carlos Pabia (the same person who contracted him) was appointed as the administrator of Baldomero's estate -However Carlos died. Leon Sy-Juilliong was appointed as replacement (so new administrator of Baldomero's estate) -Mariano Escueta sued the new administrator of Baldomero's estate for the services he rendered for the settlement of Baldomero's estate
LC: dismissed complaint for recovery -the services rendered by the plaintiff were entirely unneccessary WON the services rendered by Mariano are necessary expenses of the estate? -his services - which was rendered to procure the administrator for Baldomero's estate - were necessary: y Baldomero left an estate of about P46k, almost all of which are interest in his father's estate y Executor refused to deliver any of the property to the administrator of the estate y Estate has not been divided and is in the hands of the executory y Question as to who are the heirs of Baldomero -his estate of P46k: it is extremely advisable that an administrator be appointed When an estate is regularly administered in the Court of First Instance, and commissioners appointed before whom claims must be presented within the time fixed in the order, they are by law, with some few exceptions, barred unless so presented. This time may be limited by the court to six months. It is important to the heirs of an estate to know as soon after the death of the intestate as possible what claims exist against it. If they then know what demands are made against it, they have an opportunity to ascertain the facts relating to such demands when evidence concerning their validity can be easily obtained. Unfounded claims in such cases can be more easily defeated than they could if they were presented several years after the death of the intestate. From which estate should he claim? From the estate of Carlos Pabia >the claim or cause of action arose after the death of Baldomero so it was not a proper claim to be presented to his estate >if it was made w/ Carlos Pabia in his personal capacity: then sue him (kaya lang he's dedz na) >if it was made w/ Carlos Pabia as the administrator of Baldomero's Estate: the contract made between the administrator and the lawyer does not bind the estate to such an extent that the lawyer can maintain an action against it and recover a judgment which is binding upon it. the creditor has 2 remedies: 1. Prosecute an action against the administrator as an individual - if judgment is rendered against the administrator and is paid by him, the administrator can include the amount paid as an expense of administration in the final account 2. Present a petition in the proceeding relating to the settlement of the estate, asking that the court, after notice to all persons interested, allow his claim and direct the administrator to pay it as an expense of administration

III.

IV.

ES CU E TA V . S Y JU ILLI ONG Facts: Mariano was engaged by one of the heirs (Carlos) to procure the services of an administrator for the estate of one of the other heirs (Baldomero) but Carlos died. So he now claims from the replacement administrator for reimbursement. Court held that Mariano was should claim from the administrator of Carlos or from the estate of Baldomero through a petition to the court or through the current administrator. Facts -Joaquin Martinez Sy-Tiongtay executed his last will -he was engaged in the shipping business -heirs: *children with Chan-Sinnin y Carlos Pabia 3|A s s i g n m e n t N o . 5 & 6 _Specpr o B_C ha Mendoza k

>>>whatever course adopted, the heirs and other persons interested in the estate will have a right to inquire into the necessity for making the contract and the value of the work performed by the attorney SO HERE, WHAT MARIANO CAN DO: 1. claim against he person responsible therefor (the representative of Carlos Pabia) 2. Make an application in the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Baldomero for its allowance and payment (and not claim from the administrator of the estate who just replaced Carlos Pabia) OC C ENA V . M AR Q U EZ Summary: Petitioners prayed for partial payment of their AF since the time they worked for the executor of the estate but the respondent judge, though awarding them with AF, said that the said fees was already the fee they're going to receive for the whole estate proceedings. The Court held that the probate court, though the trustee of the estate, should not act whimsically to deprive due process to the petitioners who should be allowed to present proofs of their claimed AF. Facts: -William Ogan died leaving more than P2M to 7 heirs -the estate executrix, Mrs. Necitas Ogan Occena, had 2 lawyers - Atty. Jesus Occena and Atty. Samuel Occena (husband of the executrix Necitas). They had been representing the estate since 1963 -the 7 heirs decided to enter into a compromise w/ the claimants of the estate: o P220k in cash awarded to Atty. Isabelo Binamira (former executor?), his lawyers and his wife -by 1966, CIR already issued a tax clearance for the estate as settled by the executrix -In 1965, Petitioners filed a MOTION FOR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES of P30k as part of payment of their fees as counsel of the administratrix since 1963 >>>3 of 7 heirs (Lily, William and Ruth) moved to defer consideration of the motion until after the total amounts for the executrix's fees and attorney's fees of her counsel have been agreed upon by all the heirs >>>1966: 5 of 7 (Lily, Necitas, Federico, Liboria, and Nancy) manifested that they had no objection to the release of the P30k as PARTIAL PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES, recommend approval of the motion >>> motion was still unresolved -2nd motion for payment of partial attorney's fees >>>deferred: William and Ruth wanted all the instituted heirs to agree IN WRITING on the total attorney's fees >>>MR Filed TC: Judge fixed TOTAL AF from 1963 to 1965 at P20k >>>MR: DENIED + fixed the P20k as the AF for the whole testate proceedings -so Petitioners here filed this petition, alleging GADALEJ on part of the judge -defense of Judge Marquez (among others): o it is the duty of respondent Judge not to be very liberal to the attorney representing the executrix, who is at the same time the wife of said counsel and is herself an heir to a sizable portion of the estate, for respondent Judge's duty is to see to it that the estate is administered "frugally," "as economically as possible," and to avoid "that a considerable portion of the estate is absorbed in the process of such division," in order that there may be a worthy residue for the heirs o since petitioners Samuel C. Occea and Jesus V. Occea are the husband and father-in-law, respectively, of executrix Necitas Ogan Occea, the latter cannot be expected to oppose petitioners' claims for attorney's fees, thus leaving the co-executor as the lone party to represent and defend the interests of the estate, Atty. I. V. Binamira, who claims to be coexecutor of the Ogan estate, filed with this Court on July, 1967, a Motion for Leave to Intervene, which was granted in a resolution of August 9, 1967 - but BINAMIRA WAS NO LONGER THE COEXECUTOR. 4|A s s i g n m e n t N o . 5 & 6 _Specpr o B_C ha Mendoza k

WON the estate is liable for the AF collected by the petitioners? INDIRECTLY -The rule is that when a lawyer has rendered legal services to the executor or administrator to assist him in the execution of his trust, his attorney's fees may be allowed as expenses of administration. -The estate is, however, not directly liable for his fees, the liability for payment resting primarily on the executor or administrator. If the administrator had paid the fees, he would be entitled to reimbursement from the estate. -The procedure to be followed by counsel in order to collect his fees is to request the administrator to make payment, ...and should the latter fail to pay, either to (a) file an action against him in his personal capacity, and not as administrator, or (b) file a petition in the testate or intestate proceedings asking the court, after notice to all the heirs and interested parties, to direct the payment of his fees as expenses of administration. Whichever course is adopted, the heirs and other persons interested in the estate will have the right to inquire into the value, of the services of the lawyer and on the necessity of his employment. HERE: Petitioners filed petition DIRECTLY to the probate court WON Probate court's act of limiting the AF was proper (based on the records of the case)? NO -he probate court acts as a trustee of the estate, and as such trustee it should jealously guard the estate under administration and see to it that it is wisely and economically administered and not dissipated. This rule, however, does not authorize the court, in the discharge of its function as trustee of the estate, to act in a whimsical and capricious manner or to fix the amount of fees which a lawyer is entitled to without according to the latter opportunity to prove the legitimate value of his services. -HERE: 5 of the 7 already consented to the granting of partial payment of AF. The other 2 did not disagree, they just wanted the payment to be recorded and agreed to in writing. -VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS: should have allowed petitioners to adduce evidence to prove what is the proper amount of AF *BUT payment of partial AF not granted because there were allegations made by petitioners on the labor, time and trouble involved in their legal undertaking which is STILL SUBJECT TO A FORMAL JUDICIAL INQUIRY WON ATTY. BINAMIRA SHOULD BE GUILTY OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT FOR FALSE AVERMENTS IN THE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION? YES. -note that 21 instances were cited here as false averments made by Atty. Binamira We find no rule of law or of ethics which would justify the conduct of a lawyer in any case, whether civil or criminal, in endeavoring by dishonest means to mislead the court, even if to do so might work to the advantage of his client. The conduct of the lawyer before the court and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and fairness. It is neither candid nor fair for a lawyer to knowingly make false allegations in a judicial pleading or to misquote the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness, the argument of opposing counsel or the contents of a decision. Before his admission to the practice of law, he took the solemn oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, and conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to courts as well as to his clients. We find that Atty. Binamira, in having deliberately made these false allegations in his pleadings, has been recreant to his oath.

D-10 RULE 86 C ASES S ALON GA V . P AS CU AL Summary: Salonga et al Law offices were engaged by OLIVIA PASCUAL to be her lawyer in the settlement of the estate of DONA ADELA Pascual and agreed that the retainer fee be 3% of the WHOLE ESTATE.

Salonga et al filed for provisional recognition of their AF but Notice was ony given to OLIVIA, out of the 19 other heirs and 4 other institutions who were devicees and legatees in the will of Dona Adela. Court held that since the claim was against the estate as an administration expense, notice and hearing should be conducted so that the parties interested may determine the necessity and value of the services rendered by the law firm. Facts: -2 estates involved: 1. Don Andres' Estate - INTESTATE 2. Dona Adela's Estate - Testate -Don Andres and Dona died w/o children so nephews and nieces claim to be their heirs. -Don Andres died first. -OLIVIA and HERMES Pascual, the acknowledged natural children of ELIGIO (Don Andres' brother) claimed to be heirs of Don Andres, and Dona Adela supported their claims. However, a compromise agreement was entered into by the other heirs wherein 3/4 would go to Dona Adela and the other 1/4 goes to the heirs , w/o prejudice to the claims of the OLIVIA and HERMES claims subsequently DENIED -Dona Adela died leaving behind a will: y OLIVIA as the executrix and principal beneficiary y Other legacies and devices -OLIVIA engaged services of petitioner law firm wherein they agreed that the professional fee would be: "3% of the total gross estate as well as the fruits thereof based on the court approved inventory of the estate. Fruits shall be reckoned from the time of [Olivia Pascual's] appointment as executrix of the estate. The 3% final fee shall be payable upon approval by the court of the agreement for the distribution of the properties to the court designated heirs of the estate." -so petitioners in behalf of Olivia commenced a petition for probate of Dona Adela's last will which was opposed (oppositor showed a different will) -PROBATE allowed will showed by Olivia -Petitioner filed a NOTICE OF ATTORNEY's LIEN w/ court COURT: atty's lien noted as a lien that must be satisfied chargeable to the share of OLIVIA PASCUAL >>>also ordered that notice be given, requiring all the persons having claims for money against Dona Adela to file claims w/n 6m from Nov 1993. -petitioner filed MOTION TO ANNOTATE ATTORNEY's LIEN -January 1994, Intestate court approved compromise agreement on the estate of DON ANDRES, gave 1/4 to the other heirs of Don Andres then 3/4 to Dona Adela + award of AF to Atty. Jesus Santos -Petitioner filed MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION FOR THE PARTIAL PAYMENT EXECUTION OF ATTORNEY'S LIEN - based amount claimed from the Motion to submit project partition filed by Olivia where alleged gross appraised value of Dona Adela was P39,936, 567 (which includes 3/4 of Don Esteban's estate) >>>OPPOSED by OLIVIA: 1. she should be charged, not the estate 2. NOTICE should be given to several legatees des9gnated by Dona Adela 3. Premature claim as the intestate proceedings (of Don Andres) not yet done, to the prejudice of the other heirs of Don Andres entitled to 1/4 of the estate PROBATE COURT: deny motion for writ of execution >prematurely filed as proceedings for determination fo Don Andres estate not yet done -NOV 1994: Olivia filed a MOTION TO DECLARE GENERAL DEFAULT AND DISTRIBUTION OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS W/ CANCELLATION OF ADMINISTRATOR'S BOND: 1. No creditors even after due notice given 2. Intestate proceedings terminated 3. Estate taxes already paid, with corresponding certificate from BIR 4. 2 of the conjugal properties of spouses already partitioned among heirs in accordance with the compromise agreement 5|A s s i g n m e n t N o . 5 & 6 _Specpr o B_C ha Mendoza k

>>>Petitioner prayed for annotation of their lien on the properties of Dona Adela and for the partial execution for the satisfaction of the attorney's lien COURT: DISALLOWED LIEN: prematurely filed - no exact estate to be inventoried and re-appraised yet bulk has not yet been turned over tot eh executrix >>>appealed to CA CA: affirm LC 1. Claim should only be from Olivia's share, not the whole estate 2. The said payment shall be given upon approval of the court

WON a lawyer can claim against estate? YES, Indirectly -restated rule in Occena GR: it is the executor or administrator who is primarily liable for AF due to the lawyer who rendered legal services for the executor or administrator in relation to the settlement of the estate >>>administrator, in turn, may just seek reimbursement from the estate IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE SERVICES OF THE LAWYER REDOUNDED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE X: if the executor/administrator refuses to pay 1. Claim from executor/administrator in his PERSONAL CAPACITY 2. File a petition in the testate or intestate proceedings, asking the court to direct the payment of attorney's fees as an expense of administration WITH NOTICE TO ALL THE HEIRS AND INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE MADE SO AS TO ENABLE THESE PERSONS TO INQUIRE INTO THE VALUE OF THE SERVICES OF THE LAWYER AND ON THE NECESSITY OF HIS EMPLOYMENT -AF as ADMINISTRATION EXPENSE: Administration expenses include attorney's fees incurred in connection with the administration of the estate. It is an expense attending the accomplishment of the purpose of administration growing out of the contract or obligation entered into by the personal representative of the estate, and thus the claim for reimbursement must be superior to the rights of the beneficiaries. -when estate SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED W/ AF: y if the services of the lawyer is merely to protect the interests of particular persons/heirs and not the estate y If the administrator brings on litigation for the deliberate purpose of defrauding the legitimate heirs and for his own benefit -NOTICE to all the heirs and interested parties always needed WON the AF should be obtained solely from share of OLIVIA? NO -Jurisprudence provides that AF may be obtained from share of other heirs - from the estate WON there is sufficient notice given to the heirs and interested parties? NO - Notice of Attorney's Lien only seeks to serve notice of the pendency of the claim for attorney's fees, and not the payment of such fees itself. On its own, the Notice of Attorney's Lien cannot serve as the basis for the Probate Court to authorize the payment to petitioner of attorney's fees. -The filing of the Notice of Attorney's Lien and the qualificatory character of the rulings thereon, do not preclude the resort to the mode of recovery against the estate as authorized by jurisprudence. -DONA ADELA has 19 other heirs designated and 4 different institutions as recipients of devices or legacies BUT ONLY OLIVIA was served w/ a copy of the MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION -WHY NOTICE NEEDED: y The requisite notice to the heirs, devisees, and legatees is anchored on the constitutional 40 principle that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. The fact that these persons were designated in the will as recipients of the testamentary dispositions from the decedent establishes their rights to the succession, which are transmitted to them from the 41 moment of the death of the decedent. The payment of such attorney's fees necessarily diminishes the estate of the decedent, and may effectively diminish the value of the

testamentary dispositions made by the decedent. These heirs, devisees, and legatees acquire proprietary rights by reason of the will upon the moment of the death of the decedent, incipient or inchoate as such rights may be. Hence, notice to these interested persons of the claims for attorney's fees is integral, so as to allow them to pose any objections or oppositions to such claim which, after all, could lead to the reduction of their benefits from the estate NO INTENT TO HOLD FULLBLOWN MEETING: The failure to notify the other heirs, devisees or legatees, to the estate of Doa Adela likewise deprives these interested persons of the right to be heard in a hearing geared towards determining whether petitioner was entitled to the immediate payment of attorney's fees. Notably, petitioner, in filing its Motion for Writ of Execution, had initially set the hearing on the motion on 29 April 1994, but one day prior to the scheduled hearing, gave notice instead that the motion was being submitted for the 42 consideration of the Probate Court without further argument. Evidently, petitioner did not intend a full-blown hearing to ensue on whether it was entitled to the payment of attorney's fees. Yet the claim for attorney's fees is hardly incontrovertible. That the Retainer Agreement set the attorney's fees at three percent (3%) of the gross estate does not imply that the basis for attorney's fees is beyond controversy. Attorney's fees in this case are in the nature of administration expenses, or necessary expenses in the first place. Any party interested in the estate may very well, in theory, posit a myriad of objections to the attorney's fees sought, such as for example, that these fees were not necessary expenses in the care, management, and settlement of the estate. Whether or not such basis for valid objections exists in this case is not evident, but the fact remains that all the parties interested in the estate, namely the other devisees and legatees, were deprived of the opportunity to raise such objections as they were not served notice of the Motion for Writ of Execution.

Facts -there's already a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Amadeo Matute Olave in the Manila court. There's an order from this court providing that the co-administrators should first secure the probate court's approval before entering into any transaction involving the 17 titles of the estate -Southwest Agricultural Marketing Corporation (SAMCO) filed Civil case for collection of debt and attorney's fees in Davao court against the co-administrators of the estate of Amadeo Olave -even after order from the probate court to secure first its approval, SAMCO and the co-administrators entered into an AMICABLE SETTLEMENT wherein one of the 17 titles of the estate was ceded to SAMCO as payment for its claim. This was done w/o notice and approval of the probate court -DAVAO COURT: approved amicable settlement WON SAMCO PROPERLY FILED CLAIM IN A SEPARATE PROCEEDING? NO 1. R87.1: "no action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator; . . ." 2. Claim of Samco could only be pursued by filing it in the administration proceedings and w/n the prescribed period, or else barred forever 3. kWhy present claims in the probate court: to protect the estate of deceased persons. That way, the executor or administrator will be able to examine each claim and determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed. Further, the primary object of the provisions requiring presentation is to apprise the administrator and the probate court of the existence of the claim so that a proper and timely arrangement may be made for its payment in full or by pro-rata portion in the due course of the administration, inasmuch as upon the death of a person, his entire estate is burdened with the payment of all of his debts and no creditor shall enjoy any preference or priority; all of them shall share pro-rata in the liquidation of the estate of the deceased. 4. Manila Probate court already has exclusive jurisdiction over the proceeding and the properties claimed: R73.1 5. The law is clear that where the estate of the deceased person is already the subject of a testate or intestate proceeding, the administrator cannot enter into any transaction involving it without prior approval of the probate court. S ANT OS V . MAN AR ANG Summary: The deceased, in his last will and testament, acknowledged his indebtedness to Santos so Santos did not file any claim against estate until the Committee convened to hear the claims had already rendered a report to the court. Court held that even if a claim is recognized in a will, the claim should still be presented to the Court to be verified and subject to inquiry of interested parties and this should be done after the period given by the lower court. NOTE DISSENT wants to allow it because the claim may be deemed a legacy in the will (and the will of the testator should be primordial) and that since the period should have been counted from the time the notice requirements had been complied with and no compliance here shown then the period for Santos to file his claim has not lapsed yet (also considering that there is no final accounting yet and the proceedings are still ongoing), and thus the probate court should have allowed such claim. Facts: -Don Lucas de Ocampo died on Nov 1906 but left a will -in his will, he recognized his indebtedness to ISIDRO SANTOS amounting to P7,454, to wit: "I also declare that I have contracted the debts detailed below, and it is my desire that they may be religiously paid by my wife and executors in the form and at the time agreed upon with my creditors." -will was probated in July 15, 1907. Widow was made temporary administatrix until the appointment of COSME NAVAL as the executor (as named in the will)

WON AF MAY ALREADY BE COLLECTED? PREMATURE Needs: 1. Approval of the final ascertainment of the value of the gross total estate of Dona Adela 2. Approval by the Probate court of the agreement for the distribution of the properties -ADVANTAGES OF FILING CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE ITSELF (as administration expenses): claim for reimbursement is superior to the right of beneficiaries to the estate, and as such, there is need to finally determine the respective shares of the beneficiary before AF in the nature of administration expenses may be paid out -DISADVANTAGE: cannot be deemed binding n the estate, and has to await for the concurrence of the conditions of the retainer agreement to satisfy claim So what needed: notice to the heirs, devices, legatees + hearing to focus on the value of services rendered by the petitioner and the necessity of engaging petitioner as counsel Disposition: mandate the Probate Court to treat the Motion for Writ of Immediate Execution as a petition seeking a court order to direct the payment of attorney's fees as expenses of administration, but subject to the condition that petitioner give due notice to the other designated devisees and legatees so designated in the will of the claim prior to the requisite hearing thereon. Petitioner may as well seize such opportunity to formally amend or reconfigure its motion to a petition to direct payment of attorney's fees. ES TA TE OF OL AV E V S . R E YES (1983 ) Summary: Administrators of estate of decedent entered into an amicable settlement with a creditor company who wanted to collect from the estate of the decedent in a separate proceeding. This was done w/o prior approval of the probate court. SC held that prior approval of the probate court needed because (1) the claim of the creditors is a claim against the estate; and (2) probate court already acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case, to the exclusion of the other court) 6|A s s i g n m e n t N o . 5 & 6 _Specpr o B_C ha Mendoza k

-JULY 23, 1907: Committee of appraisal was constituted, with PEDRO ABAD SANTOS & MARCOS TANCUACO named as members. Probate court ordered that notice to creditors be published by the Committee of appraisal. y On notice given: it provided that claims should be presented w/n 6 months from date of notice at the dwelling o PEDRO A. SANTOS -September 1907: NAVAL was removed as executor, replaced by LEANDRA MANARANG (wife) -December 3: PEDRO ABAD SANTOS RESIGNED from the committee to become the attorney for the estate, replaced by DONATO ITTURALDE -January 1908: Court formally ordered that ITTURALDE replace ABAD SANTOS and re-ordered the committee to post a notice at the main door of the courthouse, and in 3 public places, and publication in "El Imparcial" -July 14, 1908: Committee filed a report (which states that the claims presented were those from the date of the first publication which is July 1907 -July 1909: Isidro Santos filed an application to reopen the sessions of the committee and permit him to present his claim as mentioned in the will TC: DENY by reason of lapse of time >MR + motion for an order to direct executor to pay the petitioner in pursuance to testator's directions (in the wil): DENY by reason of lapse of time ISSUES: WON there was proper publication (thus, proper notice)? MAIN DECISION Yes there was proper publication "the record affirmatively shows that the committee did make the publication required by law." EVIDENCE: an AFFIDAVIT of the Publisher of "El Imparcial" setting out that the notice to creditors attached to the affidavit and signed by PEDRO ABAD SANTOS and MARCOS TANCUACO, dated July 1907 was published 3 weeks from July 25 to August 16 DISSENT No proper publication

and as such, ordered the administratrix to present her inventory by August of that year, on the theory that by July, all the claims against the estate has been presented to the committee WON the indebtedness acknowledged in the will is subject to the committee's authority? MAIN DECISION YES DISSENT YES but no express provision that these claims should be presented before the committee -No statute expressly requiring the presentation of debt already acknowledged in the will before the committee Provision for appointment of committee authorized to hear classes of claims does not require expressly that a creditor should present his claim before it Although there's a section which provides that if the creditor fails to present his claim w/n the time provided by law, then it is barred, there is no express provision requiring that the creditor file his claim before committee -Only certain claims need to be presented to the committee and thus, only those certain claims are barred if not exhibited; committee is authorized to take jurisdiction over those claims only which survive against the executor or administrator but such claims are not defined in the rules therefore, it was the intention of the law to restrict the jurisdiction of the committee It is not a claim. It's a debt, period. CLAIM: a debt in embryo, mere evidence of a debt and must pass through the process prescribed by law before it develops to what is properly called a debt DEBT: a claim which has been favorably passed upon by the highest authority to which it can in law be submitted and has been declared to be a debt The will should be paramount!

1.

There is nothing in the will to indicate that any or all of the plaintiff's claims are contingent claim claims for the possession of or title to real property damages for injury to a person or property, real or personal For the possession of specified articles of personal property so proper to be considered by the committee

y
proven:

Publication not sufficiently

No proof of posting at the main door and on 3 public places As admitted by the y committee in their July 1908 report, the claims they presented were from the time of the first publication - from JULY 1907 But this y publication does not show that The y newspaper was daily, biweekly Day of y the week or month when publication made The y notice was published 3 weeks successively (once each week for 3 successive weeks) But the court in January 1908 reordered the committee to give out new notices because the first notice specifies that the claims be presented before the former committee member (ABAD SANTOS), who is now the counsel for the estate No proof that notices were given out pursuant to the January 1908 order; the probate court merely believed that such notice was made,

The debt is a claim w/n the meaning of the law

It is a claim which survives against the executors/administrator that needs to be exhibited before the committee

WON the claim should be presented before the committee even if the will expressly acknowledges it? (EXPOUND THE LAST ITEM ON TABLE OF #2)

7|A s s i g n m e n t N o . 5

& 6 _Specpr o B_C ha Mendoza k

MAIN DECISION Testator cannot put on his will provisions which are contrary to law or public policy 2 restrictions imposed by law upon the power of the testator to dispose of his property: a. his estate would be liable to all obligations b. he cannot dispose the legal portion due to his heirs by force of law Needs to be presented and verified to prevent o Alienation of part of estate by means of a bequest under a guise of debt o Payment of amounts which are not due (the amount specified in the will may be more than the actual amount due) o Payment of amounts which the testator only thought he owed (fictitious debt) The direction in the will for the executor to pay all just debts does not mean that he shall pay them without probate. There is nothing in the will to indicate that the testator in tended that his estate should be administered in any other than the regular way under the statute, which requires "all demands against the estates of the deceased persons," "all such demands as may be exhibited," etc. The statute provides the very means for ascertaining whether the claims against the estate or just debts. It is not a legacy, because a legacy is an act of pure beneficience and can only be claimed after all the debts have been paid; here, it is for a consideration - it is a debt

DISSENT in giving effect to the will, the intention of the testator as expressed in the will shall be fully and punctually observed. If by the use of clear and certain, his will explains itself, and all the court can do is to give it effect. -a will is not primarily evidence of anything; it is the thing itself. It is not much the evidence of what the testator did or intended to do; it is the testator himself. - so not a PN, not an evidence of indebtedness Subjecting the provisions of the will to the approval of the committee gives the committee the power to annul an express and mandatory provision of a will which is as binding as a provision giving legacy There is no defense that payment was already made by the estate. And the claim was not contested There is, in effect, already an admission on the part of the testator that he owed such an amount from SANTOS, which frees Santos the burden of finding evidence to support the alleged debt. The court therefore equates Santos with creditors who has not a scrap of written evidence to support his claim >>>The burden of the estate to show payment was made affirmatively

Due possibly to the comparative shortness of the period of limitation applying to such claims as compared with the ordinary statute of limitations, the statute of nonclaims has not the finality of the ordinary statute of limitations. It may be safely said that a saving provision, more or less liberal, is annexed to the statute of nonclaims in every jurisdiction where is found. In this country its saving clause is found in section 690, which reads as follows: On application of a creditor who has failed to present his claim, if *made within six months after the time previously limited, or, *if a committee fails to give the notice required by this chapter, and such application is made before the final settlement of the estate, the court may, for cause shown, and on such terms as are equitable, renew the commission and allow further time, not exceeding one month, for the committee to examine such claim, in which case it shall personally notify the parties of the time and place of hearing, and as soon as may be make the return of their doings to the court. If the committee fails to give the notice required, that is a sufficient cause for reconvening it for further consideration of claims which may not have been presented before its final report was submitted to the court. Disposition: there must be a hearing sometime before some tribunal to determine the correctness of the debts recognized in the wills of deceased persons. This hearing, in the first instance, can not be had before the court because the law does not authorize it. Such debtors must present their claims to the committee, otherwise their claims will be forever barred.

OTHER Doctrinal stuff that I don't know where to put: On Statute of nonclaims: It cannot be questioned that thus section supersedes the ordinary limitation of actions provided for in chapter 3 of the Code. It is strictly confined, in its application, to claims against the estate of deceased persons, and has been almost universally adopted as part of the probate law of the United States. It is commonly termed the statute of nonclaims, and its purpose is to settle the affairs of the estate with dispatch, so that residue may be delivered to the persons entitled thereto without their being afterwards called upon to respond in actions for claims, which, under the ordinary statute of limitations, have not yet prescribed. The object of the law in fixing a definite period within which claims must be presented is to insure the speedy settling of the affairs of a deceased person and the early delivery of the property of the estate in the hands of the persons entitled to receive it. (Estate of De Dios, 24 Phil. Rep., 573.) 8|A s s i g n m e n t N o . 5 & 6 _Specpr o B_C ha Mendoza k