G.R. No. 48577 . February 11, 1944.
Intestate Estate of the late Ignacio Uy Quimco. MONICO UY YT (Administrator), Oppositor-Appellant, vs. QUIRINA RIOS & SONS, Movants-Appellees.

FACTS

This case involves the settlement of the intestate estate of Ignacio Uy Quimco. On December 7, 1937, the probate court granted the administrator, Monico Uy Yt, authority to withdraw the remaining undistributed cash of P600 from the estate to pay his attorney, Jose G. Macatangay, for services rendered. The administrator withdrew the amount, paid P350 to the attorney, and retained P250 pending a motion for reconsideration filed by the attorney for Quirina Rios on behalf of her minor children, who were heirs. The motion, which contended that half of the P600 should be paid to them, was denied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the order authorizing the payment on February 27, 1941.
In the interim, an appeal by two other heirs, Benito Uy and Maria Uy, from the approval of the project of partition was decided in their favor, with costs amounting to P141.60 awarded against the appellee administrator. On August 15, 1939, while the appeal regarding the P600 payment was pending, the attorney for Quirina Rios petitioned the court to order the administrator to pay these costs. The court initially ordered all heirs to pay the costs but, upon reconsideration, amended the order to require the administrator to pay them. The court later ordered the administrator not to dispose of the P250 balance without court permission.
On October 7, 1940, the court (Judge Abeto) ordered the administrator to pay the costs of P141.60 from the P250 in his hands. The administrator appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the costs of P141.60 awarded against the administrator should be paid from the P250 remaining in the administrator’s hands (which had been previously authorized for payment to the administrator’s attorney as fees) or should be paid by the heirs and distributees of the estate from the property they had received.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the order of October 7, 1940, and reinstated the original order dated August 30, 1939, requiring the heirs to pay the costs of P141.60 from the properties they received from the estate.
The Court ruled that both the attorney’s fees of P600 and the costs of P141.60 were expenses of administration. However, since the remaining cash of P600 had been adjudicated by the court to the attorney for the administrator long before the costs were awarded, it would be inequitable and cause unnecessary inconvenience to require the attorney to pursue remedies against both the cash and the distributed properties. The Court held that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to modify its December 7, 1937, order after an appeal had been perfected and was pending, and since the appellate court subsequently affirmed that order in full, it must be enforced as originally granted.
The Court rejected the appellees’ objection that they, as heirs in whose favor the costs were awarded, should not bear part of those costs. It held that the costs, adjudged against the administrator in relation to his official duties, were rightfully chargeable as an administration expense against the estate. The distribution of assets did not change the nature of the expense or benefit some heirs to the prejudice of others.
Separate Opinion (Dissent by Justice Moran):
Justice Moran dissented, arguing that the P250 cash should be applied proportionately to both claims (costs and attorney’s fees) since the estate was solvent and both were administration expenses. He contended that the attorney’s fees could still be collected from the distributed properties if necessary, and that using the available cash to pay the costs immediately would prevent the unnecessary sale of estate properties. He also noted that the attorney, who represented most heirs, could easily collect any balance from his clients and was partly responsible for the premature distribution of the estate while cases were still pending.