G.R. No. 26593 , March 24, 1927
In re guardianship of the minors Pablo Rivera et al.

MARIANO VELAYO, petitioner-appellant, vs. CLARO PATRICIO, opponent-appellant.

FACTS

On December 29, 1922, Josefa Patricio hired Atty. Mariano Velayo under a written contract to sue her father, Claro Patricio, to recover her inheritance from her mother. The contract stipulated Velayo’s fee as 50% of the property recovered. The suit (Civil Case No. 23528) was filed on January 6, 1923. Josefa died on July 5, 1924, while the case was pending. Velayo moved for the substitution of Josefa’s minor children as plaintiffs, which was granted, and a guardian ad litem was appointed. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the minors for P12,868.47, which the Supreme Court later increased to P22,454.69 on appeal. Claro Patricio was appointed guardian of the minors. Velayo then filed a petition in the guardianship proceedings, claiming 50% of the judgment amount (P11,227.34) as his fee under the contract with Josefa. The guardian opposed, arguing the minors were not bound by their mother’s contract and that the claim should have been filed with the estate’s committee on claims. The trial court held the contract unconscionable but allowed Velayo a reduced fee of P7,000. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the minors are bound by the contingent fee contract between Atty. Velayo and their deceased mother, Josefa Patricio, thereby obligating them to pay the contractual fee.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and denied Velayo’s petition. The contract was not binding on the minors as they were not parties to it, and their guardian had no knowledge of it. Upon Josefa’s death, Velayo should have followed the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure by having an administrator of her estate appointed to continue the action with the probate court’s consent, instead of substituting the minors as plaintiffs. While Velayo might be entitled to reasonable compensation on a *quantum meruit* basis for services that benefited the minors, he pursued his claim solely on the theory of the contract’s enforceability against them. Since the minors’ defense was properly limited to the contract’s inapplicability, and evidence on the reasonable value of services was not presented, awarding compensation on *quantum meruit* at the appellate level would deprive them of their day in court. The claim was therefore denied without prejudice to any proper action Velayo might take against Josefa’s estate.