G.R. No. 42516; August 22, 1936
Intestate estate of the deceased SANTIAGO NICOLAS. DOMINGO NICOLAS, ex-administrator-appellant, vs. TIMOTEA NICOLAS, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

Domingo Nicolas, the former administrator of the intestate estate of Santiago Nicolas, appealed from a court order approving his submitted accounts with amendments. The order required him to turn over a balance of P726.01 to the new administrator. The lower court had disallowed several items in his accounts, including payments to an attorney, a partial payment of a debt of the deceased, a payment to a commissioner, and expenses for the death anniversary of the deceased. The appellant also contested procedural issues, specifically the disapproval of his record on appeal for including unrelated pleadings and the alleged lack of a hearing and examination under oath on his accounts.

ISSUE

1. Did the lower court err in ordering the elimination of certain pleadings and orders from the record on appeal?
2. Did the lower court err in not subjecting the appellant to an examination under oath and not holding a hearing on his accounts?
3. Did the lower court err in disallowing specific items in the administrator’s accounts?

RULING

1. No. The lower court correctly ordered the elimination of pleadings, orders, decrees, and judgments not related to the appealed order of June 20, 1934. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, only the appealed order and the accounts embraced therein are necessary for the appeal. The excluded documents were merely evidence of services rendered and were superfluous.
2. No. The record showed that a hearing was set and held on the accounts, during which the appellant appeared and was given the opportunity to present evidence and explain his accounts. Therefore, his claim of not being examined under oath or granted a hearing is without merit.
3. No. The disallowed items were properly rejected:
The payments to the attorney, the debt payment, and the commissioner’s fee were unauthorized by the court and had been previously discussed in an unappealed order.
The death anniversary expenses (P36.50) were not allowable as funeral expenses or as part of the sepulture, having no relation to the funeral.
The compensation for the administrator’s services was correctly limited to P4 per day for days actually and necessarily spent in estate administration. The 18 days granted by the lower court at this rate was deemed reasonable, rejecting the appellant’s claim for payment for every minor task performed.
Pending bills in a later account were also rejected for the same reasons as similar items in the earlier account.
The appealed order was affirmed in its entirety.

AI Generated by Armztrong.