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
 

   
September-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 190 September 26, 1964 - MARCOS MEDINA v. LORETO U. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-17405 September 26, 1964 - JOSE AGUDO, JR. v. JOSE R. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19132 September 26, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO CAÑADA

  • G.R. No. L-17069 September 28, 1964 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC. v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-18421 September 28, 1964 - TOMAS BESA v. JOSE CASTELLVI

  • G.R. No. L-18817 September 28, 1964 - ANTONIO G. TADY-Y v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-18865 September 28, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN S. ALANO

  • G.R. No. L-20219 September 28, 1964 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-22626 September 28, 1964 - ALICE FOLEY VDA. DE MARCELO v. RAFAEL S. SISON

  • G.R. No. L-16252 September 29, 1964 - ROSARIO MAS v. ELISA DUMARA-OG

  • G.R. No. L-17097 September 29, 1964 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE COMPANY v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-19159 September 29, 1964 - GLICERIA C. LIWANAG v. LUIS B. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-19391 September 29, 1964 - CECILIO DE LA CRUZ v. MANUEL JESUS DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-19776 September 29, 1964 - BENJAMIN CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19957 September 29, 1964 - ELIAS AGUSTIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PANIQUI SUGAR MILLS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-20111 September 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO E. VARGAS

  • G.R. No. L-14888 September 30, 1964 - MERCEDES CLEMENTE v. JOVITO BONIFACIO

  • G.R. No. L-15418 September 30, 1964 - WEST LEYTE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. ADELAIDO SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-17029 September 30, 1964 - SAMUEL S. SHARRUF v. FRANK BUBLA

  • G.R. No. L-17194 September 30, 1964 - PRIMITIVO SATO v. SIMEON RALLOS

  • G.R. No. L-17960 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: SY CHHUT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18596 September 30, 1964 - ALVAREZ MALAGUIT v. FELIX ALIPIO

  • G.R. No. L-18674 September 30, 1964 - FLORENTINA CALMA v. JOSE MONTUYA

  • G.R. No. L-19107-09 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: LAO YAP HAN DIOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19419 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: GAW CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19583 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: ONG BON KOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. No. L-19709 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19778 September 30, 1964 - CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19830 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: PAUL TEH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20077 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PACOMIO

  • G.R. No. L-20103 September 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. CONCHITA VDA. DE CHAVEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20146 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO OPLADO

  • G.R. No. L-20150 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN DOCTOR y DIZON

  • G.R. No. L-20232 September 30, 1964 - MUNICIPALITY OF LA CARLOTA v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-20219 September 28, 1964 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-18421   September 28, 1964 - TOMAS BESA v. JOSE CASTELLVI

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-18421. September 28, 1964.]

    TOMAS BESA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JOSE CASTELLVI, ET AL., Oppositors-Appellants.

    Jose W. Diokno and Celestino L. Dios for oppositors-appellants.

    Federico Agrava for Plaintiff-Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. APPEALS; ATTORNEY’S FEES DISMISSAL WHERE RENDERED NUGATORY BY EFFECT OF DECISION. — Where the order of the court appealed from is that the attorney’s fees should be one-third of whatever share his clients may get from the estate of the latter’s deceased father and in an appeal taken by the same oppositors from an order of the same probate court to the effect that they have no right whatsoever to share in the estate of said deceased father this Court affirmed this latter order in toto thus rendering the first mentioned order, the subject of the present appeal, moot or academic, it is held that the present appeal should be dismissed.


    D E C I S I O N


    BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


    On October 16, 1948, Tomas Besa filed a petition before the court a quo in the testate estate case of the late Alfonso de Castellvi praying that the court fix the attorney’s fees to which he is entitled for (a) services he rendered to Jose Castellvi and Consuelo Castellvi on matters pertaining to said case; (b) services rendered to Jose Castellvi in connection with his actuation as judicial administrator of the estate; and (c) services he rendered to both in the case filed against them before the same court by Natividad de Castellvi for the annulment of an agreement executed on December 11, 1940 wherein Jose and Consuelo were given one-third of the whole estate, and praying that a date be set for the hearing of the petition for the purpose above-mentioned and that said attorney’s fees be constituted as a lien over the share that may be adjudicated to said Jose and Consuelo in the testate proceedings.

    Jose and Consuelo filed a written opposition wherein they vehemently denied having entered into a definite understanding with petitioner on his fees contending that their understanding was that they would pay him a reasonable compensation for his services. Oppositors further averred that the amount of P15,000.00 claimed by petitioner was unfair and that they are only willing to pay him the sum of P5,000.00 after deducting what they had previously paid him for his services.

    On May 4, 1955, petitioner amended his petition, this time claiming that his agreement with oppositors was that the later would pay him with property equal to one-third of the estate that may be adjudicated to oppositors and, therefore, he prayed that one-third of the two-thirds of the estate which was not expropriated, as well as the sum of money to be paid to them by the Republic of the Philippines, be given to petitioner.

    The oppositors again filed an opposition to this amended petition contending, among others, that petitioner’s services were availed of only thru the intercession of an uncle who was a personal friend of petitioner and because of such personal consideration no definite agreement has been arrived at between oppositors and petitioner regarding the latter’s attorney’s fees.

    After petitioner and oppositors had filed a reply and counter reply, and after the court had heard both parties orally and in writing, the court a quo issued an order directing oppositors to pay petitioner the sum of P20,000.00 as his attorney’s fees within 10 days after the order shall have become final. But after petitioner had filed a motion for reconsideration, this order was amended on December 16, 1960, the court declaring that petitioner is entitled to one-third of whatever share oppositors may get from the estate of their deceased father Alfonso Castellvi. From this order, oppositors interposed the present appeal.

    As may be noted, the first order of the court a quo was to the effect that oppositors should pay petitioner the sum of P20,000.00 as his attorney’s fees for the services he rendered to them, but, in a latter order, this directive was modified in the sense that, in lieu thereof, petitioner should be given one-third of whatever share oppositors may get from the estate of their deceased father. However, in the appeal taken by the same oppositors from an order rendered by the same probate court to the effect that they have no right whatsoever to share in the estate of the deceased Alfonso de Castellvi because the latter’s true heirs are only Natividad de Castellvi de Raquiza and the heirs of Juan de Castellvi, this Court in a decision rendered on October 31, 1963 (L-17630) affirmed this order in toto thereby stating that oppositors are not entitled to any share in the estate of the aforesaid deceased.

    The effect of this decision is to render the order appealed from moot or academic, thus rendering this appeal purposeless or nugatory. Consequently, this Court has no other alternative than to dismiss this appeal, without costs.

    Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

    Barrera, J., took no part.

    G.R. No. L-18421   September 28, 1964 - TOMAS BESA v. JOSE CASTELLVI


    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