The document outlines the fees and expenses allowed for an administrator in settling an estate under Philippine law. An administrator is entitled to P4 per day for time employed or a commission based on the value of the estate, with higher percentages for lower value portions. For large or difficult estates, higher fees may be granted. The case examples summarize two Supreme Court rulings related to administrator fees. One upheld a P500,000 fee for an administrator who increased an estate's value from P890,000 to over P10 million. The other concerned an attorney's right to retain estate documents until paid.
The document outlines the fees and expenses allowed for an administrator in settling an estate under Philippine law. An administrator is entitled to P4 per day for time employed or a commission based on the value of the estate, with higher percentages for lower value portions. For large or difficult estates, higher fees may be granted. The case examples summarize two Supreme Court rulings related to administrator fees. One upheld a P500,000 fee for an administrator who increased an estate's value from P890,000 to over P10 million. The other concerned an attorney's right to retain estate documents until paid.
The document outlines the fees and expenses allowed for an administrator in settling an estate under Philippine law. An administrator is entitled to P4 per day for time employed or a commission based on the value of the estate, with higher percentages for lower value portions. For large or difficult estates, higher fees may be granted. The case examples summarize two Supreme Court rulings related to administrator fees. One upheld a P500,000 fee for an administrator who increased an estate's value from P890,000 to over P10 million. The other concerned an attorney's right to retain estate documents until paid.
The document outlines the fees and expenses allowed for an administrator in settling an estate under Philippine law. An administrator is entitled to P4 per day for time employed or a commission based on the value of the estate, with higher percentages for lower value portions. For large or difficult estates, higher fees may be granted. The case examples summarize two Supreme Court rulings related to administrator fees. One upheld a P500,000 fee for an administrator who increased an estate's value from P890,000 to over P10 million. The other concerned an attorney's right to retain estate documents until paid.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
EXPENSES AND FEES ALLOWED AN ADMINISTRATOR
For necessary expenses in the case, management, and settlement of the estate, and for his services
Four pesos (P4.00) per day for the time actually and necessarily employed, OR Commission upon the value of so much of the estate as comes into his possession and is finally disposed of by him in the payment of debts, expenses, legacies, or distributive shares, or by delivery to heirs or devisees First P5,000 of value of estate Over P5,000 but not over P30,000 Over P30,000 but not over P100,000 Over P100,000
2% 1% 0.5% 0.25%
But in any special case, where the estate is large, and the settlement has been attended with great difficulty, and has required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator, a greater sum may be allowed. If objection to the fees allowed be taken, the allowance may be re-examined on appeal.
If there are two or more executors or administrators, the compensation shall be
apportioned among them by the court according to the services actually rendered by them respectively. When the executor or administrator is an attorney, he shall not charge against the estate any professional fees for legal services rendered by him. Source: Rule 85, Section 7 of the Rules of Court
Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. IAC
13 February 1989 / G.R. No. 72424 The administrator filed a motion for allowances and payment of administrators commission. The parties representing the deceased administrator were contesting the IACs reduction of the administrators commission from P500,000.00 (as adjudged by the lower courts) to a mere P4,312.50. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ADMINISTRATOR and upheld the grant of P500,000.00 commission.
It cited the special case provision in Rule 85, Section 7 and said that [a] wide latitude, leeway or discretion is therefore given to the trial court to grant a greater sum. And the determination of whether the administration and liquidation of an estate have been attended with greater difficulty and have required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator rests on the sound discretion of the court which took cognizance of the estate.
While the inventory was only P890,865.25 as of an earlier date, the
value of the estate INCREASED not only by the efforts to take good care thereof and by the efforts to locate other properties belonging to the estate, such that when the administrator submitted the inventory of the properties after five years, the total appraisal appeared to be over P10 million.
Considering the size of the estate and extent of the care given by the administrator, the amount asked for is not unreasonable and should therefore be allowed.
OLD CASES Testate Estate of Amadeo Matute Olave v. Jose S. Matute (G.R. No. L-27832, 28 May 1970) o The Supreme Court reversed the probate courts order which denied the counsel for the estate the right to retain documents without his claim for fees being first satisfied. o Note: The lawyer in this case was not an administrator, but from time to time, he was in possession of titles belonging to the estate. The lawyers legal services included the study, preparation, drafting, due execution and probate of the testament of the deceased. o Furthermore: The Court only made reference to the provision on Attorneys Liens (Rule 138, Section 7), not to provisions on the administrators compensation.
Testate Estate of Amadeo Matute Olave v. Julian Villanueva Matute
(G.R. No. L-21287, 31 Aug 1966)
In this case, the retention of documents belonging to the estate was
DENIED because the counsel served not the estate but the administrator in his individual capacity.
