RULE 85 VER.

QUASHA ANCHETA PEÑA v. LCN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

G.R No. 174873, August 26, 2008

DOCTRINE: 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 an attorney, to charge against the
estate professional fees for legal services rendered by them.

FACTS: After Raymond Triviere passes away intestate, a proceeding for the settlement of his estate was
instituted by his widow, Amy Triviere. Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha of the Quasha Law Office,
representing the widow and children of the late Raymond, 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.
However, the RTC denied the Motion for Payment, citing their failure to submit an accounting of the
assets and liabilities of the estate under administration of Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha. In 1996, Atty.
Quasha also passed away. Atty. 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.

In 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. Respondent
LCN, as the only remaining claimant against the Estate of the Late Raymond filed its Opposition to the
Motion, contending that the 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. LCN also averred that the
administrators and the heirs of the late Raymond had earlier agreed to fix the former's fees at only 5%
of the gross estate, based on which, as per the computation of LCN, the administrators were even
overpaid Php 55k contrary to what was stated in the second Motion for Payment, thus Section 7, Rule
85 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. Corollary
thereto, Section 2, Rule 82 provides that the Court may remove or accept resignation of executor or
administrator. Additionally, 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 does not show evidence that Quasha Law Office or any of its lawyers substituted Atty.
Quasha as co-administrator. None of the documents attached pertain to the issuance of letters of
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 an attorney, 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 as prayed for in the 2002 Motion for Payment
and as awarded by the RTC in its 2003 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.

RULE 90 VER.

FACTS: After Raymond Triviere passes away intestate, a proceeding for the settlement of his estate was
instituted by his widow, Amy Triviere. Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha of the Quasha Law Office,
representing the widow and children of the late Raymond, 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.
However, the RTC denied the Motion, citing their failure to submit an accounting of the assets and
liabilities of the estate under administration of Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha. In 1996, Atty. Quasha also
passed away. Atty. 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.

In 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, alleging in
their new motion that there has been no payment of money from the estate for more than 10 years
already. As a consequence, they moved that the amount of P1M be taken from the estate funds to be
divided among the parties (P450k as share of the children, P200k as attorney’s fees, P150k as share of
the widow, and P200k for the administrator). Respondent LCN filed its Opposition to the Motion,
contending that the 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.

CA modifies the RTC decision by deleting the awards of P450k and P150k in favor of the children and
widow of the deceased respectively. The appellate court adopted the position of LCN that the claim of
LCN was an obligation of the estate which was yet unpaid and, under Section 1, Rule 90, barred the
distribution of the residue of the estate. Petitioners, though, insist that the awards in favor of the
petitioner children and widow of the late Raymond Triviere is not a distribution of the residue of the
estate, thus, rendering Section 1, Rule 90 inapplicable.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in ruling that the award in favor of the heirs is already a distribution of the
residue of the estate — NO

HELD: Although it is within the discretion of the RTC whether or not to permit the advance distribution
of the estate, its exercise of such discretion should be qualified by the following: [1] only part of the
estate that is not affected by any pending controversy or appeal may be the subject of advance
distribution (Section 2, Rule 109); and [2] the distributees must post a bond, fixed by the court,
conditioned for the payment of outstanding obligations of the estate (Section 1, Rule 90). There is no
showing that the RTC, in awarding to the petitioner children and widow their shares in the estate prior
to the settlement of all its obligations, complied with these two requirements or, at the very least, took
the same into consideration. Its 2003 Order is completely silent on these matters. It justified its grant of
the award in a single sentence which stated that petitioner children and widow had not yet received
their respective shares from the estate after all these years. Taking into account that the claim of LCN
against the estate of the late Raymond Triviere allegedly amounted to Php6M , already in excess of the
Php 4.7M reported total value of the estate, the RTC should have been more prudent in approving the
advance distribution of the same.

Petitioners earlier invoked Dael v. IAC, where the Court sustained an Order granting partial distribution
of an estate. However, Dael is not even on all fours with the case at bar. No similar determination on
sufficiency of assets or absence of any outstanding obligations of the estate of the late Raymond Triviere
was made by the RTC in this case. In fact, there is a pending claim by LCN against the estate, and the
amount thereof exceeds the value of the entire estate. Furthermore, in Dael, the Court actually
cautioned that partial distribution of the decedent's estate pending final termination of the testate or
intestate proceeding should as much as possible be discouraged by the courts, and, except in extreme
cases, such form of advances of inheritance should not be countenanced. The reason for this rule is that
courts should guard with utmost zeal and jealousy the estate of the decedent to the end that the
creditors thereof be adequately protected and all the rightful heirs be assured of their shares in the
inheritance.
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 and Kenny Sabarra, 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‘s heirs, be
overturned.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has no jurisdiction over the matter and, and may not be amended, or
modified?

RULING: NO. In the case of Manning International Corporation v. NLRC, The SC 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
regardless 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.".