Aldamiz V CFI Mindoro

CASE DIGEST Aldamiz v. Judge of CFI Mindoro December 29, 1949 Moran, C.J.
FACTS: Santiago Rementeria y Aldamizcogeascoa, the decedent was a Spaniard and member of the commercial partnership "Aldamiz y Rementeria." The other members were his brothers. Santiago Rementeria died in Spain in 1937, and probate proceedings were instituted in the same year in the CFI of Mindoro by Gavino Aldamiz represented by Atty. Juan L. Luna. Gavino Aldamiz was appointed administrator and was again represented by respondent Atty. Juan Luna. After ten years from the date of his appointment, Gavino Aldamiz, as administrator, through his attorney, Juan L. Luna, submitted his accounts for the years 1944, 1945 and 1946 and also a project of partition with a view to closing the proceedings. The court approved the accounts but refused to approve the project of partition unless all debts including attorney's fees be first paid. In the project of partition, it was expressly stated that attorney's fees, debts and incidental expenses would be proportionately paid by the beneficiaries after the closure of the testate proceedings, but the court refused to sanction this clause of the project. Attorney Luna, to comply with the wishes of the court, without filing a written petition to have his professional fees fixed, and without previous notice to all the interested parties, submitted evidence of his services and professional standing so that the court may fix his compensation and the administrator may make payment thereof. It is to be noted that Attorney Luna served as attorney for the administrator as legal consultants to Santiago and his brothers and to the "Aldamiz y Rementeria,". He did not charge them professional services, thus showing disinterested and extreme liberality due to friendship and other personal considerations toward his clients. When he wanted to close accounts of the estate, he showed no interest in demanding for payment by preferring to leave the matter to the future negotiation or understanding with the interested parties. When the amount of his fees was fixed by the court and Gavino Aldamiz asked him for a substantial reduction, he answered that it was not he who
had fixed the amount but the court, and advised his client to file a motion for reconsideration, with the assurance that he would offer no objection to any reduction in amount and to any extension of the time for paying what might be granted by the court. The Court issued its order of January 21, 1947, awarding respondent Attorney Luna, in payment of his professional services, an aggregate sum of P28,000. Petitioner was able to pay P5,000 only, and upon his failure to pay the balance after several demands made upon him by respondent attorney, the latter filed an ex-parte motion for execution which was granted by the respondent Court. ISSUE: WON the court erred in fixing the amount of attorneys fees and issuing a writ of execution (YES) HELD: 1. The correct procedure for the collection of attorney's fees, is for the counsel to request the administrator to make payment and file an action against him in his personal capacity and not as an administrator should he fail to pay. If the judgment is rendered against the administrator and he pays, he may include the fees so paid in his account to the court. The attorney also may, instead of bringing such an action, file a petition in the testate or intestate proceeding "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." No written petition for the payment of attorney's fees has ever been filed by the respondent attorney and the interested parties had not been previously notified thereof nor of the hearing held by the court. Consequently, the order issued by the respondent court for the payment of the respondents fees and all subsequent orders implementing it, are null and void, as having been issued an excess of jurisdiction. 2. The order of execution is also null and void because a writ of execution is not the proper procedure allowed by the Rules of the Court for the payment of debts and expenses of administration. The proper procedure is for the court to order the sale of personal estate or the sale of mortgaged of real property of the deceased and all debts or expenses of administration should be paid out of the
proceeds of the sale or mortgage. The order for the sale or mortgage should be issued upon motion of the administrator and with the written notice to all the heirs, legatees and devisees residing in the Philippines. Execution may issue only where the devisees, legatees or heirs have entered into possession of their respective portions in the estate prior to settlement and payment of the debts and expenses of administration and it is later ascertained that there are such debts and expenses to be paid, in which case "the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of their several liabilities, and order how much and in what manner each person shall contribute, and may issue execution if circumstances require.

Aldamiz V CFI Mindoro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aldamiz V CFI Mindoro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aldamiz V CFI Mindoro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE DIGEST Aldamiz v. Judge of CFI Mindoro December 29, 1949 Moran, C.J.

You might also like