GR L 16363; (August, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16363; August 3, 1920
NAZARIA PILIIN, petitioner, vs. VICENTE JOCSON, Judge of First Instance of Batangas, and FELIPE AGONCILLO, respondents.
FACTS:
Nazaria Piliin was the administratrix of the estate of Natalio Vizconde in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. Felipe Agoncillo, the respondent, had served as her attorney in the estate proceedings. In September 1919, Agoncillo filed a motion in the same estate proceedings, asking the court to allow his claim for attorney’s fees in the amount of P4,746.82 as a balance due for services rendered from 1915 to 1919. The administratrix, Piliin, opposed the motion, stating her current attorney had withdrawn due to a conflict of interest and requested a postponement to properly contest the claim, which she alleged was excessive and not in accordance with her contract. She also asked that the claim be litigated in a separate action. The court denied her request and, in an order dated October 1, 1919, granted Agoncillo’s claim, ordering the amount to be deducted from the hereditary shares of the widow and children. Subsequently, on March 4, 1920, the court issued an order directing the sheriff to levy on the estate’s property (specifically “guarapo” or sugar and other assets) to satisfy the award. Piliin’s new attorney moved to set aside both orders, but the court denied the motions, holding the fee order was final and the execution order was not appealable. Piliin then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, and seeking to annul the orders.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the Court of First Instance exceeded its jurisdiction in fixing the attorney’s fees within the testamentary proceedings and issuing the October 1, 1919 order.
2. Whether the Court of First Instance exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the March 4, 1920 order directing the sheriff to levy on and sell estate property to satisfy the award of attorney’s fees.
RULING:
1. On the jurisdiction to fix attorney’s fees: The Court held that the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding the claim for attorney’s fees within the testamentary proceedings. Following the doctrine in Escueta vs. Sy-Juilliong, a creditor, such as an attorney for the administrator, may properly present his claim for fees in the estate settlement proceedings for allowance by the court as an expense of administration. The order fixing the fees, even if potentially excessive, was within the court’s jurisdiction. The proper remedy for the administratrix was to except to that order and appeal from it within the reglementary period. Not having done so, the order became final and could not be assailed in the present certiorari proceeding. The Court, however, noted that the trial court should have granted the administratrix’s reasonable request for postponement to secure new counsel.
2. On the jurisdiction to issue execution: The Court held that the trial court did exceed its jurisdiction in issuing the March 4, 1920 order directing the sheriff to levy on estate property. Property under administration is in custodia legis (in the custody of the law). There is no statutory authority in the Philippines allowing a sheriff to levy on such property under an ordinary writ of execution. The proper procedure for paying debts and expenses of an estate, including allowed attorney’s fees, is governed by specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Chapters 36 and 37). This requires the executor or administrator, after obtaining a license from the court following prescribed notices and hearings, to sell the property. The court’s order bypassing this statutory scheme and directing a sheriff’s sale was null and void.
DISPOSITIVE:
The petition was granted in part. The Supreme Court issued a perpetual injunction restraining the sheriff of Batangas from proceeding with the levy and the Court of First Instance of Batangas from ordering execution on any estate property to satisfy the attorney’s fees award. Costs were adjudged against the respondents, except the respondent Judge.
