GR L 2360; (December, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2360. December 29, 1949.
GAVINO ALDAMIZ, as administrator of the estate of the deceased Santiago Rementeria y Aldamizcogeascoa, petitioner, vs. THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MINDORO, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF MINDORO and JUAN L. LUNA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gavino Aldamiz is the administrator of the testate estate of Santiago Rementeria. Respondent Juan L. Luna served as the attorney for the administrator for ten years. In 1947, during proceedings to close the estate, the court refused to approve a project of partition unless all debts, including attorney’s fees, were paid. Respondent attorney then orally presented evidence for his fees without filing a written petition and without notice to all interested parties. The court issued an order fixing his fees at P28,000. After partial payment, the court granted an ex-parte motion for execution. The sheriff levied upon and sold at public auction two parcels of land belonging to the commercial partnership “Aldamiz y Rementeria,” not the estate, for only P20,000 despite a much higher assessed value.
ISSUE
Whether the order of the court fixing the attorney’s fees and the subsequent orders of execution and sale are valid.
RULING
No. The order fixing attorney’s fees and all subsequent implementing orders are null and void. The proper procedure for collecting attorney’s fees from an estate is for the counsel to either (1) file an action against the administrator in his personal capacity, or (2) file a petition in the testate proceeding asking the court, after notice to all interested persons, to allow the claim and direct payment as an expense of administration. Here, no written petition was filed, and no notice was given to all interested parties. Furthermore, the awarded fees improperly included compensation for services rendered to other persons and entities (naturalization cases and land registration for the partnership), not to the estate. The lack of notice and proper procedure deprived interested parties of their day in court and led to errors in the award. The sale of partnership property to satisfy an estate obligation was also invalid.
AI Generated by Armztrong.