G.R. No. L-47379; April 25, 1941
Intestado del finado Celestino Reyes. AMADA DACANAY, recurrente y apelante, vs. LA MANCOMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS, recurrida y apelada.

FACTS

The court, on March 18, 1938, ordered the appearance of creditors to pay their claims with the proceeds from the sale of a property in this intestate estate. Among the claims ordered paid were: 1) P3,220 in favor of the Government as inheritance tax; 2) P305.44, the amount of a judgment in favor of the municipality of Candelaria, Tayabas; and 3) the fees for professional services rendered by Gabriel N. Trinidad, as the administration’s lawyer. The administratrix, Amada Dacanay, appealed this order, arguing that the court erred in not declaring her claim for her services as administratrix and for the accumulated and unpaid amounts corresponding to her maintenance as preferred.

ISSUE

Whether the court erred in ordering the payment of the specified claims (inheritance tax, municipal judgment debt, and lawyer’s fees) without first declaring and paying the administratrix’s claim for her services and maintenance as a preferred credit.

RULING

The appealed order is affirmed. The court did not err.
1. On the Inheritance Tax: The claim that its payment was premature due to the lack of liquidation and partition is erroneous. Section 1544 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3606 , provides that when an intestate or testate proceeding is instituted within six months after death and no partition has been made after 18 months from its commencement (as in this case), the Collector of Internal Revenue shall determine the tax based on the best evidence obtainable and demand its payment from the administrator. It is not true that the inheritance tax can only be collected after the partition of the deceased’s estate.
2. On the Municipal Judgment: The amount of P305.44 from the judgment in favor of the Government against this estate is indisputably a legal credit.
3. On the Lawyer’s Fees: The professional fees of the administration’s lawyer, considered administration expenses, are likewise legally payable.
The legality of these credits is not disputed. The appellant’s contention is that her claim for services and maintenance constitutes a preferred credit. However, her claim under these concepts has not been approved by the court and its payment is not yet proper. Furthermore, it does not appear that, after making these court-approved payments, the estate would lack funds to pay the administratrix’s claim if it were duly approved in due time.