GR 42510; (December, 1935) (Digest)
G.R. No. 42510 , December 21, 1935
In re WILL of the deceased Mariano Lopez. NATALIA AREVALO, ex-administratrix-appellee, vs. CARMEN ADRIANO, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
This is an appeal from the probate court’s decision approving the amended reports of a referee concerning the semestral account (January 1 to June 30, 1932) rendered by the executrix and co-heiress, Natalia Arevalo, for the estate of the deceased Mariano Lopez. The oppositor and co-heiress, Carmen Adriano, appealed, contesting specific items in the account.
ISSUE
Whether the probate court erred in approving the disputed items in the administratrix’s account, namely: (1) additional compensation to employees; (2) payments to dismissed employee Ulpiano Sarmiento and agent M. Angeles; (3) expenses for commissions, extra salaries, and suppers for laborers; (4) hospital expenses for the deceased’s last illness; (5) a P5,000 disbursement for repurchasing a property; and (6) attorney’s fees paid to Atty. Perfecto Gabriel.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s decision, holding that all disputed items were properly approved.
(1) The additional compensation to employees was justified as it was authorized by the testator during his lifetime, despite not being previously approved by the court.
(2) The payment to the dismissed employee was proper under article 302 of the Code of Commerce as he was dismissed without cause, and the payment to the agent represented the return of his deposit.
(3) The expenses for commissions, extra salaries, and suppers were legitimate as they followed the established practice of the testator’s business.
(4) The hospital expense, part of the last illness costs, was a valid administration expense regardless of the source of funds.
(5) The P5,000 item for repurchasing a property was correctly accounted for as it represented a transaction legitimately entered into by the testator during his lifetime.
(6) The attorney’s fees were reasonable for services rendered, and the subsequent nullity of some documents prepared did not invalidate the fees absent proof of the attorney’s bad faith.
All assignments of error were overruled. Costs were taxed against the oppositor-appellant.
AI Generated by Armztrong.