G.R. No. 49108 ; March 28, 1946
In the matter of the testate estate of the late Margarita David. GONZALO D. DAVID, petitioner-appellant, vs. CARLOS SISON, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a resolution of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering the estate administrator to pay Gonzalo D. David P18,000 as attorney’s fees for services rendered from March 1941 to March 1943. David had petitioned for fees equivalent to 5% of the estate’s value, initially claiming P72,779.10 based on the original inventory and later P81,375.36 based on the inventoried estate plus its income. The oppositor, Carlos Sison, contended the awarded amount was exorbitant and later suggested P3,000 as reasonable, provided his wife (an heiress) would not bear any part of the payment. The appeal raised three main issues: (1) whether a donation executed by the deceased Margarita David on September 6, 1940, was inter vivos or mortis causa; (2) whether heiress Priscila F. Sison should share in the burden of paying the attorney’s fees; and (3) the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees. The deed of donation reserved for the donor the usufruct (fruits and profits) of the properties during her lifetime and prohibited alienation by the donees without her consent. Margarita David was irretrievably ill when she executed the donation, died less than six months later, and the properties remained under her administration until her death. The donees were her adopted daughters and universal heirs.

ISSUE

1. Whether the donation executed by Margarita David is inter vivos or mortis causa.
2. Whether heiress Priscila F. Sison should shoulder her corresponding share of the attorney’s fees.
3. What constitutes a reasonable amount for the attorney’s fees.

RULING

1. The donation is mortis causa. The Court found that the essential elements of ownership—the right to dispose of the properties and the right to enjoy their fruits and profits—remained with Margarita David during her lifetime and would accrue to the donees only upon her death. This, combined with the circumstances of her illness and the short time between the donation and her death, led to the conclusion that the donation was to take effect upon her death. However, the Court ruled that the donated properties need not be included in the estate proceedings for inventory, as there were sufficient other properties to answer the estate’s obligations.
2. Yes, heiress Priscila F. Sison must shoulder her corresponding burden for the payment of the attorney’s fees. The Court held that no heir, legatee, or devisee may evade payment of estate obligations that should be answered by the estate as a whole, without discrimination.
3. The reasonable attorney’s fee is fixed at P10,000. The Court examined the memoranda of legal services rendered and found them generally routine, not requiring special skill, unusual effort, or extensive study that would preclude other work. In determining the amount, the Court considered the length of service (about two and a half years), the number of services rendered, and the fact that petitioner, a near relative of the deceased, received only a small legacy. The appealed resolution was modified accordingly.