ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1399   April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON<br /><br />083 Phil 413

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1399. April 27, 1949.]

    In the matter of the testate estate of the late Margarita David. GONZALO T. DAVID, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CARLOS M. SISON, Defendant-Appellant.

    Teodoro R. Dominguez for Appellant.

    Jesus Ocampo and Gonzalo T. David for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; ATTORNEY’S FEES; OBLIGATION TO PAY DEVOLVES TO THE ESTATE; RIGHT TO COLLECT MAY NOT BE SUSPENDED NOR DEPEND UPON FIXING OF SHARES TO BE PAID BY HEIRS. — Whether the heirs, legatees and devisees have already taken physical possession and administration of their respective portions of the inheritance or not may not interfere in any way with appellee’s right to collect without delay the attorney’s fees in question and for the estate of M. D. to effect said payment. The obligation to pay the fees in question devolves to the estate. The right of appellee to collect them may not be suspended or any way made to depend on the fixing of the shares to be paid by the heirs, legatees and devisees. Considering the fact that said attorney’s fees have been fixed in a decision of the Supreme Court rendered since March 28, 1946, three years ago, there is no valid reason why the payment should be delayed further. The lower court should have taken adequate measures to avoid that such a shocking delay could have happened in disrepute to the Philippine system of administering justice.

    2. ID.; ID.; MORATORIUM LAW; ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE NOT MONEY DEBTS. — Appellant’s second contention that the payment of said attorney’s fees should have been suspended under the moratorium provided by Executive Order No. 25, as amended by Executive Order No. 32, is equally without merit. The attorney’s fees in question are not money debts and other monetary obligations contemplated in the moratorium provided by Executive Orders Nos. 25 and 32. Said attorney’s fees are part of the administration expenses of the estate of M. D. aside from the fact that the obligation to pay said attorney’s fees became effective only since March 28, 1946, when the Supreme Court rendered the decision fixing said attorney’s fees, and said date is well beyond the time fixed in the moratorium of the executive orders. The President who issued said orders could never have entertained the idea of suspending the payment of administration expenses in testate proceedings, because it would be simply absurd.


    D E C I S I O N


    PERFECTO, J.:


    On August 8, 1946, petitioner and appellee Gonzalo T. David prayed the trial court to order executor Jose Teodoro and appellant Carlos M. Sison to pay him the sum of P10,000, with legal interests thereon from September 2, 1943, alleging that said amount was fixed as his attorney’s fees by the Supreme Court in a decision promulgated on April 9, 1946 (G. R. 49108), said decision having become final and executory. Petitioner further alleged that the market value of the properties of the deceased Margarita David, to whose estate he rendered professional services as a lawyer, is around P4,000,000.

    Carlos M. Sison, judicial administrator representing the interests of Priscila F. de Sison, opposed the motion alleging that petitioner’s attorney’s fees must be paid by all the heirs including the legatees who must contribute in proportion to their shares of the inheritance. That it is not true that the market value of the properties of Margarita David is around P4,000,000; that excluding the donated properties, the value of the estate involved in the proceedings is P116,054.18; that the participation of Narcisa F. de Teodoro and Priscila F. de Sison, is approximately one-half of the estate which amounts to P62,845.93, and that their liability amounts to P5,415.21, and Priscila F. de Sison has no objection to paying as her share the amount of P2,707.60.

    On September 9, 1946, the lower court ordered the executor of the estate of Margarita David to pay to petitioner the sum of P10,000.

    On September 17, 1946, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration praying that the payment of attorney’s fees of petitioner be suspended in virtue of the moratorium provided by executive order and at the same time that the Court declare as the share of Priscila F. de Sison the payment of said attorney’s fees in the sum of P2,707.60.

    The motion for reconsideration was denied in an order issued on October 3, 1946, and appeal was taken.

    Appellant assigns as first error of the lower court, when it ordered the payment of the sum of P10,000 to Gonzalo T. David as attorney’s fees without determining and fixing the proportionate amounts thereof which each of the heirs, legatees and devisees of the estate should pay in accordance with the value of their respective inheritance, it appearing that they have already taken physical possession and administration of the corresponding portions of the estate allotted to them even before the estate’s liability for attorney’s fees has been determined.

    Appellant’s contention has no merit. Whether the heirs, legatees and devisees have already taken physical possession and administration of their respective portions of the inheritance or not may not interfere in any way with appellee’s right to collect without delay the attorney’s fees in question and for the estate of Margarita David to effect said payment. The obligation to pay the fees in question devolves to the estate. The right of appellee to collect them may not be suspended or in any way made to depend on the fixing of the shares to be paid by the heirs, legatees and devisees. Considering the fact that said attorney’s fees have been fixed in a decision of the Supreme Court rendered since March 28, 1946, three years ago, there is no valid reason why the payment should be delayed further. The lower court should have taken adequate measures to avoid that such a shocking delay could have happened in disrepute to the Philippine system of administering justice.

    Appellant’s second contention that the payment of said attorney’s fees should have been suspended under the moratorium provided by Executive Order No. 25, as amended by Executive Order No. 32, is equally without merit. The attorney’s fees in question are not money debts and other monetary obligations contemplated in the moratorium provided by Executive Orders Nos. 25 and 32. Said attorney’s fees are part of the administration expenses of the estate of Margarita David, aside from the fact that the obligation to pay said attorney’s fees became effective only since March 28, 1946, when the Supreme Court rendered the decision fixing said attorney’s fees, and said date is well beyond the time fixed in the moratorium of the executive orders. The President who issued said orders could never have entertained the idea of suspending the payment of administration expenses in testate proceedings, because it would be simply absurd.

    The appealed order of the lower court dated October 9, 1946, is affirmed, modified by including legal interests from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court, March 28, 1946, with costs against Appellant.

    Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-1399   April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON<br /><br />083 Phil 413


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED