GR 34895; (March, 1932) (Digest)
G.R. No. 34895 ; March 15, 1932
Estate of the deceased Fruto Santos. MACARIO SULIT, petitioner-appellant, vs. FAUSTA SANTOS, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.
FACTS
Macario Sulit, the executor of the estate of Fruto Santos, appealed from orders of the Court of First Instance of Rizal disallowing certain items in his account. The contested items included attorney’s fees (reduced by the trial court) and expenses totaling P173.95 paid for the premium, preparation, filing, and substitution of his bond as special administrator and executor. The trial court held these bond-related expenses were not proper charges against the estate.
ISSUE
Whether the expenses incurred by an executor or administrator to procure a bond are proper charges against the estate under Section 680 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s orders. The general rule, followed in the absence of a specific statute, is that such bond expenses are not chargeable to the estate. Section 680 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows necessary expenses in the “care, management, and settlement of the estate,” but these are expenses incurred after the executor or administrator has qualified and entered upon his duties. The requirement to post a bond is a condition precedent and a personal qualification for the office. The executor, by offering an adequate bond, admits the adequacy of the compensation provided by law. Therefore, the expenses for procuring the bond are personal to the executor and not reimbursable from the estate. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the reduction of attorney’s fees.
AI Generated by Armztrong.