Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 120575 December 16, 1998
DR. OLIVIA S. PASCUAL, in her capacity as special
administratrix of the estate of the late DON ANDRES
PASCUAL and as executrix of the testate estate of the late
DOA ADELA S. PASCUAL, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; JUDGE MANUEL S. PADOLINA, Regional
Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 162; DEPUTY SHERIFF CARLOS
G. MAOG; and ATTY. JESUS I. SANTOS, respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The extraordinary action to annul a final judgment is restricted to
the grounds provided by law, in order to prevent it from being used
by a losing party to make a complete farce of a duly promulgated
decision that has long become final and executory.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the June
7, 1995 Decision of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA-GR SP-No. 34487,
denying the Petition for Annulment of Judgment. The dispositive
portion of the assailed Decision reads: 2
WHEREFORE,
and
upon
all
the
foregoing
considerations, the petition is hereby DISMISSED,
with costs against the petitioner.
The Facts
Don Andres Pascual died intestate on October 12, 1973 and was
survived by (1) his widow, Doa Adela Soldevilla Pascual; (2) the
children of his full blood brother. Wenceslao Pascual Sr.

Esperanza C. Pascual-Bautista, Manuel C. Pascual, Jose C. Pascual,

Susana C. Pascual-Guerrero, Erlinda C. Pascual and Wenceslao C.
Pascual Jr.; (3) the children of his half blood brother Pedro Pascual
Avelino Pascual, Isosceles Pascual, Leida Pascual-Martinez,
Virginia Pascual-Ner, Nona Pascual-Fernando, Octavio Pascual and
Geranaia Pascual-Dubert; (4) the intestate estate of his full blood
brother Eleuterio T. Pascual represented by Mamerta P. Fugoso,
Abraham S. Sarmiento III, Dominga M. Pascual, Regina SarmientoMacaibay, Dominga P. San Diego, Nelia P. Marquez, Silvestre M.
Pascual and Eleuterio M. Pascual; and (4) the acknowledged natural
children of his full blood brother Eligio Pascual Hermes S. Pascual
and Olivia S. Pascual (herein petitioner).
On December 11, 1973, Doa Adela (the surviving spouse) filed
with the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pasig, Rizal, a petition
for letters of administration over the estate of her husband. 3 After
due notice and hearing, the CFI appointed her special
administratrix. 4 To assist her with said proceedings, Doa Adela
hired, on February 24, 1974, Atty. Jesus I. Santos, herein private
respondent, as her counsel for a fee equivalent to fifteen (15)
percent of the gross estate of the decedent.
When Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 took effect, the petition was
reassigned to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 162,
presided by Judge Manual Padolina. On November 4, 1985, the
heirs of the decedent moved for the approval of their Compromise
Agreement, stipulating that three fourths (3/4) of the estate would
go to Doa Adela and one fourth (1/4) to the other heirs. The
intestate court approved said Agreement on December 10, 1985.
On August 18, 1987, while the settlement was still pending, Doa
Adela died, leaving a will which named the petitioner as the sole
universal heir. The latter filed at the Regional Trial Court of
Malabon, Branch 72, a petition for the probate of said will.
On September 30, 1987, the RTC of Pasig denied the motion to
reiterate hereditary rights, which was filed by petitioner and her
brother. The Court reasoned that, as illegitimate children of the
brother of the decedent, they were barred from acquiring any
hereditary right to her intestate estate under Article 992 of the Civil

Code. 5 On December 17, 1987, it ordered that the private

respondent's lien in the hereditary share of Doa Adela be entered
into the records.

This Court awards the attorney's fees of Atty. Jesus

Santos equivalent to 15% of the 3/4 share of the
estate of Doa Adela S. Pascual.

Six years after Doa Adela's death, on January 19, 1994, to be

exact, Judge Padolina rendered a Decision which disposed as
follows: 6

Finally, it is hereby decreed that any and all

properties of the estate of Don Andres Pascual,
whether real or personal, which may have not been
included in the inventory of properties afore-listed in
this decision, for any reason whatsoever, and which
may later on be uncovered or found in the future,
shall likewise be apportioned and distributed, as
follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, let the manner

of partition of the estate of Don Andres Pascual be as
follows:
One-fourth (1/4) of the properties,
personal and real, to the heirs of Don
Andres Pascual in accordance with the
provisions
of
the
Compromise
Agreement of October 16, 1985.
Three-fourths (3/4) of the properties
personal and real to the estate of Doa
Adela Soldevilla Pascual. In accordance
with the Compromise Agreement of
October 16, 1985.
To this end, let the Register of Deeds of the provinces
or cities where all real properties of the estate [lie],
cancel the certificates of title in the name of Don
Andres Pascual (married to Doa Adela S. Pascual),
and issue new Certificates of Title in the manner of
partition above-mentioned indicating therein the
portions they are entitled to.
With respect to the shares of stock in Liberty
Insurance Corporation and San Francisco Del Monte
Bank, and the proceeds of the sale of the real
properties of the estate and all monies and other
personal properties of the estate, the same being
capable of physical distribution. [l]et [them] be
distributed in accordance with the portions so
delineated.

1. One-fourth (1/4) of
the properties, personal
and real, to the heirs of
Don Andres Pascual in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Compromise Agreement
of October 16, 1985; and
2. Three-fourths (3/4) of
the properties, personal
and real, to the estate of
Doa Adela Soldevilla
Pascual, in accordance
with the Compromise
Agreement of October
16, 1985.
All the parties are reminded to strictly comply with
the above conditions.
After said Decision had become final and executory, the private
respondent filed on March 25, 1994 a Motion for the Issuance of a
Writ of Execution insofar as the payment of his attorney's fees was
concerned. Despite opposition from the petitioner, the motion was
granted in the April 19, 1994 Order of the intestate court, directing
"the issuance of a writ of execution in the partial amount of

P2,000,000.00 in favor of movant[,] Atty. Jose I. Santos to be

implemented against the 3/4 share of Doa Adela S. Pascual, upon
payment by the movant of the prescribed docket fees for the said
partial amount." 7
The following day, April 20, 1994, Branch Clerk of Court Arturo V.
Camacho issued a Writ of Execution; 8 and Sheriff Carlos G. Maog, a
Notice of Garnishment to the San Francisco Del Monte Rural Bank
(SFDM Avenue, Quezon City), garnishing deposits and shares of
stocks belonging to the estate of Doa Adela sufficient to cover the
amount of P2 million.9
Two days later, petitioner moved for the reconsideration and the
quashal of the Writ of Execution, 10 which the RTC of Pasig denied in
its Order of June 29, 1994. 11 Private respondent countered with two
motions to order petitioner to comply with the writ of garnishment
and to compel her to appear and explain her failure to comply with
the writ.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a
petition for annulment of the award of attorney's fees in the
January 19, 1994 Decision of the trial court the Order of April 19,
1994, granting a Writ of Execution; the Writ of Execution dated April
20, 1994; and the Order of June 29, 1994, denying petitioner's
motion for reconsideration.
As stated earlier, the appellate court dismissed the petition, ruling
that the intestate court had jurisdiction to make the questioned
award and that petitioner had been accorded due process. It noted
that the private respondent had filed his claim as early as the first
quarter of 1974; and that, in its order of December 17, 1987, the
trial court had entered the attorney's lien into the records. It upheld
the jurisdiction of the intestate court on the ground that, although
not incurred by the deceased during his lifetime, the monetary
claim was related to the ordinary acts of administration of the
estate. The CA similarly declared that the petitioner had been
accorded due process. It noted that, despite knowledge of the
claim, she did not oppose or hint at any resistance to the payment
of said claim. She also chose not to move for reconsideration or to

file an appeal after the award had been made. Indubitably, the
award became final and executory.
Hence, this petition. 12 On October 21, 1997, after the case was
submitted for resolution by the original parties, Crisanto S. Cornejo
and the other heirs of Doa Adela filed an Omnibus Motion, which
in sum, alleged that Judge Padolina conspired with petitioner and
private respondent to place the entire Pascual estate under their
control. Allegedly, Judge Padolina, in his Order of October 7, 1988,
negated Cornejo and Jose Pascual's letter of administration by
directing them "to refrain [from] initiating any move to dispossess
or eject Olivia S. Pascual from her residence; to refrain from
advertising any property of the estate for sale without prior motion
duly filed therefor with due notice to all parties and prior approval
of the Court; not to interfere in the management of the bank and to
deposit immediately in a reputable bank in the name of the estate
rentals due the estate until after the said motion shall have been
resolved by the Court." They claim that, without any hearing or
notice to them, the judge approved and awarded the attorney's
fees of private respondent, who was purportedly his classmate
andcompadre. Finally, petitioner replaced Cornejo as judicial
administrator on March 6, 1989 five months after the latter had
served as such.
Furthermore, they allege that, in the settlement of Doa Adela's
estate, private respondent filed a similar collection case before the
Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 73 which was, however,
dismissed for violating the rules against forum shopping. Private
respondent allegedly filed another collection case before the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 66, wherein petitioner, in her
Answer, alleged that she had paid him approximately P8 million
from the time his services were engaged, aside from some
unreported "commissions" from tenants, squatters and other
businesses included in the Pascual estate.
Consequently, petitioners-in-intervention pray for (1) the inhibition
and/or disqualification of Judge Padolina from hearing Sp. Proc. No.
7554 or, alternatively, another raffle of the case to any other RTC
branch in Pasig or Manila; (2) the consolidation of Sp. Proc. No.
7554 (Intestate Estate of Andres Pascual) with Sp. Proc No. 136-MN

(Testate Estate of Adela Pascual) or both with Sp. Proc. No. 88948,
filed before the RTC of Manila, Branch 40, presided by Judge Felipe
R. Pacquing (Intestate Estate of Toribia Tolentino Soldevilla, mother
of Doa Adela Pascual); (3) the investigation of the authenticity,
preparation and legal compliance of Doa Adela Pascual's Last Will
and Testament dated December 27, 1978, more specifically, the
private respondent's participation in designating petitioner as Doa
Adela's sole universal heir; (4) the setting aside of the Decisions
rendered by respondent judge in Sp. Proc. No. 7554 dated January
19, 1994, and by Judge Benjamin del Mundo-Aquino in Sp. Proc. No.
136-MN; and (5) the reopening of both cases and their remand to
the court a quo.
In their separate Comments, both petitioner and private respondent
oppose the grant of this Omnibus Motion for being untimely and
improper.
The Issues
In her Memorandum, 13 petitioner alleges that the reversal of the
assailed Decision is called for, in view of the following "compelling
reasons": 14
a. The portion of the decision dated January 19, 1994
awarding attorney's fees is void from the beginning
because it was made after . . . [the] trial court had
lost its jurisdiction over the attorney's client by
reason of her death[;]
b. The questioned portion of the decision of . . . [the]
trial court is void because it deprived the heirs of
Doa Adela due process of law[:]
c. The questioned portion of the decision of
respondent trial court is void from the beginning
because the body of the decision does not state the
facts and the law upon which the award is based[;]

d. Petitioner has not lost her right to question the

conclusion of respondent trial court on the amount of
attorney's fees[;] and
e. The writ of execution was wrongfully issued.
The Court believes that the resolution of this case hinges on the
following issues: (1) Did the trial court have jurisdiction to make the
questioned award of attorney's fees? (2) Were the heirs of Doa
Adela, who were represented by petitioner, deprived of due
process? (3) Were there factual and legal bases for the award of
attorney's fees? Additionally, the Court will dispose of Crisanto S.
Cornejo's "Omnibus Motion."
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is devoid of merit. Likewise, the Omnibus Motion is
unmeritorious.
The failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the
period fixed by law renders the decision final and executory.
Consequently, no court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review
such decision. 15 Upon the other hand, the extraordinary action to
annul a final judgment is limited to the grounds provided by law
and cannot be used as a stratagem to reopen the entire
controversy and thereby make a complete farce of a duly
promulgate decision that has long become final and
executory. 16 Accordingly, this review shall consider only matters
pertaining to the jurisprudential grounds for the annulment of a
final judgment: 17
. . . Annulment of judgment may . . . be based on the
ground that [either] a judgment is void for want of
jurisdiction or the judgment was obtained by
extrinsic fraud. . . . . 16
Petitioner does not allege extrinsic fraud, but bases her petition
only on alleged lack of jurisdiction and due process.
First Issue:

Jurisdiction over the Person of the Defendant

Petitioner insistently argues that the January 19, 1994 RTC
Decision, insofar as it awarded attorney's fees, was void from the
beginning because the intestate court had lost jurisdiction over the
person of Doa Adela (the attorney's client) due to her death.
The argument is untenable. The basic flaw in the argument is the
misapplication of the rules on the extinction of a civil action 19 in
special proceeding. The death of Doa Adela did not ipso
facto extinguish the monetary claim of private respondent or
require him to refile his claim with the court hearing the settlement
of her testate estate. Had her filed the claim against Doa Adela
personally, the rule would have applied. However, he did so against
the estate of Don Andres.
Thus, where an appointed administrator dies, the applicable rule is
Section 2, Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, which requires the
appointment of a new administrator, viz.:
Sec. 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 letter to
someone to act with him. If there is no remaining
executor or administrator, administration may be
granted to any suitable person.

The rule does not have the effect of divesting the instance court of
jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction subsists because the proper party in this
case is the estate of Don Andres, which is distinct and separate
from that of Doa Adela who merely served as the former's
administratrix. Doa Adela was merely a representative
party. 20 and the claim was an item of the administrative expenses
of Don Andres' estate. It is well-settled that a monetary claim
against the person administering an estate, in relation to his or her
acts of administration, in its ordinary course, can be filed at the
court where a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate is
pending. 21
Hence, in spite of the death of the appointed administratrix, it was
the duty of the intestate court to determine whether the private
respondent's claim was allowable as administrative expense if it
was obtained in reference to the management of the estate; the
performance of legal services which the administratrix herself could
not perform; the prosecution or defense of actions or suits on
behalf of or against the estate; or the discovery, recovery or
preservation of properties of the estate. 22 In other words, the
intestate court has a mandate to resolve whether the said claim is
a "necessary expense in the care, management and settlement of
the estate." 23 For the same reason, the fact that the private
respondent's lien was recorded four months after the administratrix
had died is of no moment.
Payment of Separate Docket
Fees Is Not Necessary
While not exactly a ground for annulment, the Court has held that it
is the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
actin. 24 Petitioner avers that the intestate court had no jurisdiction
to award the disputed attorney's fees before private respondent
paid docket fees, as required in Lacson v. Reyes. 25
The argument is untenable. The Court required in Lacson the
payment of a separate docket fee, since the lawyer's "motion for
attorney's fee" was in the "nature of an action commenced by a

lawyer against his client." In contrast, the private respondent filed a

claim for his attorney's fees against the estate of Don Andres. The
difference in the modes of action taken Lacson inapplicable to the
case at bar.
In addition, where the judgment awards a claim not specified in the
pleadings, or if specified, its amount was left for the court's
determination, the additional filing fees shall constitute a lien on
the judgment. 26 In its Order dated April 19, 1994, the intestate
court required the payment of the docket fee for the claim. In fact,
the private respondent paid the prescribed docket and additional
filing fees.
Second Issue:
Heirs of Doa Adela Were Not Deprived of Due Process
Asserting that she and the other heirs of the deceased
administratrix were denied due process of law, petitioner disputes
the
following
finding
of
the
CA: 27
We can neither view with favor the petitioner's
contention that the award was made without giving
the heirs of Doa Adela due process of law. It must
be remembered that long before the . . . Judge's
questioned Decision was rendered, the petitioner was
named special administratrix of the 3/4 share of
Doa Adela in the estate of Don Andres . . . . As such
special administratrix, the petitioner should have
been aware of all her duties and responsibilities, one
of which was to protect the estate from any
disbursements based on claims not chargeable to the
estate. She should have known that notice to her of
the attorney's lien would have amounted to notice to
the heirs of Doa Adela as well.
According to her, want to due process prevented the heirs from
contesting the claim and submitting evidence to show that partial
payments had been previously given to private respondent.

The Court is not convinced. If admitted by the administrator or

executor, a claim according to Rule 86 of Section 11 28 may be
allowed by the court without any hearing. Respondent court found
that the claim was indeed admitted and uncontested, as shown
below:
. . . From the date of her appointment as special
administratrix of the estate of Doa Adela on
September 28, 1989 up to and beyond the time the
challenged Decision became final and executory,
there was nary a pip from the petitioner as such
administratrix in opposition satisfaction of the
subject attorney's lien. To repeat what the
respondent Judge said in his aforementioned Order,
"there has been no opposition nor any hint of discord
or resistance from the special administratrix or any
other party as to this fact."
As if this were not enough, in a tacit
acknowledgment of the validity of the subject
contract of attorney's fees and acceptance of the
enforcement thereof, the petitioner had been giving
partial payments to the private respondent on the
said contract.
Then, after becoming aware of the rendition of the
respondent Judge's Decision wherein the questioned
award of attorney's fees was decreed, which was as
good a time as any to assail its propriety, the
petitioners maintained her silence and chose not to
file any motion for the reconsideration of the
Decision or appeal therefrom. Due to the petitioner's
own fault and negligence, the Decision became final
and executory. The petitioner must therefore bear
the consequences of the maxim "[E]quity aids the
vigilant, not those who slumber on their right." 29
Besides, the petitioner had ample time to contest the claim. From
her appointment as special administratrix until January 19, 1994
when the RTC Decision was rendered, she had all the time to

oppose the claim. This was the proper time to raise any objection.
When she received said Decision on February 8, 1994, again she
had the chance to question the claim in a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal, and yet she opted not to take
advantage of these remedies.
Such facts conclusively prove that petitioner was not deprived of
due process, the essence of which is the right to be heard. 30 Where
a person is not heard because he or she has chosen not to give his
or her side of the case, such right is not violated. 31 If one who has
a right to speak chooses to be silent, one cannot later complain of
being unduly silenced.
Third Issue:
Factual and Legal Bases of the Award of Attorney's Fees
Petitioner alleges that the award of attorney's fees contained in
the fallo is void ab initio, as the intestate court failed to state the
factual or legal bases therefor in the body of the Decision, in
violation of Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution. 32
The Court disagrees. The legal and factual bases of the award were
stated in the body of the January 19, 1994 RTC Decision. In
recounting the "significant events leading to [the] eventual
culmination" 33 of the case, the trial court revealed the importance
of the services of private respondent who represented the estate,
argued for the intestate court's approval of the Compromise
Agreement, and rendered legal advice on the final distribution of
the properties of the estate.

One must also consider that, unlike in the cases cited by

petitioner, 34 the awards of attorney's fees herein is not in the
concept of damages based on Article 2208 of the Civil Code which,
as an exception to the general rule not to impose a penalty on the
right to litigate, is but a compensation for services rendered. Thus,
the legal proceedings that took place and the agreement between
attorneys and client were more than sufficient proof of the legality
of the award. These factual and legal bases, unlike in cases where
attorney's fees are granted in the concept of damages, are not
unknown to the parties in the case at bar.
Reasonable Attorney's Fees
Petitioner avers that she has not lost her right to question the
amount of attorney's fees awarded to the private respondent,
insisting that it was unreasonable, as "it countenance[d]
exploitation for speculative profit on account of the estate's
enormous value."
The Court disagrees. Although attorney's fees are always subject to
judicial control, 35 delving into its reasonableness involves going
into its merits, an action that is procedurally impermissible at this
late time and in these proceedings. Be it remembered that
petitioner filed not an appeal, but a Petition to Annul a Final
Judgment. In any event, the Court finds no evidence to show that
the stipulated amount of attorney's fees was illegal immoral; or in
contravention of law, good morals, good customs, public order or
public policy. It is therefore enforceable as the law between the
parties. 36
The reasonableness of the stipulated attorney's fees finds support
in Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit v. Court of Appeals, 37 which
upheld the payment of "twenty percent of all recoveries" as
attorney's fees in a foreclosure case, in which counsel succeeded in
preventing the foreclosure of his client's property and in obtaining
for the latter P2.7 million in unpaid rentals. In the present case,
petitioner's averment that the fees in question are not
proportionate to the services rendered by private respondent fails
to consider the numerous properties involved and the private
respondent's labor for thirteen years, during which time he became

responsible for the estate of Don Andres. In fact, the established

standards in fixing attorney's fees calls for the upholding of the
award. 38
Additional Issue:
Intervention Not Allowed
Clearly understood, the Omnibus Motion is really a disguised
motion for intervention.
Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, 39 which was already in
effect when the Omnibus Motion was filed on October 21, 1997,
provides the guidelines for intervention:
Sec. 1. Who may intervene. A person who has a
legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the
success of either of the parties, or an interest against
both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by
a distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with
leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.
The court shall consider whether or not the
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and
whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully
protected in a separate proceeding. (2[a]. [b]a. R12)

Cornejo and his co-movants claim that their inheritance is being

dissipated; thus, they seek permission to intervene in this case.
Obviously, however, they filed the motion beyond the prescribed
period. Section 2 of the aforecited Rule allows intervention at "any
time before rendition of judgment by the trial court." This motion
was filed only after the parties had submitted their memoranda and
many years after both the RTC and the CA had rendered their
decisions.
Further, the motion lacks substance. Any misconduct or violation of
judicial responsibility allegedly committed by Judge Padolina is not
a proper subject of intervention. The reason is simple: he is merely
a nominal party in an action for annulment of a final judgment.
That private respondent filed Civil Case No. 95-102-MN to collect
his attorney's fees does not affect the validity or finality of the
January 19, 1994 Decision or the award of attorney's fees in the
settlement of the estate of the husband of Doa Adela. In fact, it
was dismissed for violation of the rule against forum shopping. As
the reopening of the probate of the latter's will not relevant to the
annulment of said award, the consolidation of the cases mentioned
was similarly improper. Inexistent is the connection between the
settlement of both decedents' estate and that of Toribia Tolentino
Soldevilla's. It is very clear that the motion for intervention has
absolutely no merit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition and the Omnibus Motion are hereby
DENIED, and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.