Facts:

The case, In re Will of the Deceased Mariano Lopez, revolves around the dispute over the semestral account of the estate of Mariano Lopez, as presented by his ex-administratrix, Natalia Arevalo, to the court. The case was filed in the Philippine Supreme Court following an appeal taken by Carmen Adriano, the oppositor and coheiress. The original decision was rendered on December 19, 1933, which approved the amended reports of a referee dated July 3 and August 3, 1933. The dispute primarily concerns several items within the account covering the period from January 1 to June 30, 1932. Adriano raised several assignments of error regarding specific charges made by the administratrix, including additional compensation to employees, payments made to dismissed employees, the validity of incurred expenses related to the estate's business, and attorney's fees. Throughout the proceedings, the court investigated whether these expenses were previously approved, whether they were just

...

Facts:

Semestral Account of the Estate

• The executrix and co-heiress, Natalia Arevalo, presented a semestral account for the period from January 1 to June 30, 1932.
• The account was based on reports by a referee (a public accountant and attorney) which were amended and subsequently approved by the court.
• The account included various disbursements and expenses incurred in the administration of the estate of the deceased Mariano Lopez.

Items Contested in the Account

• Additional Compensation for Employees
• Three employees (Valeriano Toral, Deogracias Tupas, and R. Bermudes) were granted extra compensation beyond their fixed salaries (P20, P10, and P5 respectively).
• Although the extra compensation had not been previously approved by the court, evidence showed it was authorized by the deceased during his lifetime.
• Payments Concerning Dismissed or Retained Employees
• A sum of P20 was paid to Ulpiano Sarmiento, who was dismissed after the testator’s death.
• A payment of P26 was made to M. Angeles, a calendar agent, with a retention of 25% commission as part of the normal practice.
• Expense for Business Operations
• An expense item of P1,099.35 was included for the payment of commissions to agents in the printing business, extra salaries for laborers working at night, and related expenses (suppers for laborers and employees).
• The administratrix incurred these expenses following the precedent set by the testator in similar circumstances during his lifetime.
• Expense for Hospitalization
• The executrix claimed an expense of P200 for the deceased’s last illness during his stay in San Juan de Dios Hospital.
• This P200 is a portion of a larger gross expense of P970 paid to the hospital.
• The contention arose on the ground that the funds to cover this expense were drawn by means of checks and arguably should not include this item.
• Property Repurchase Transaction
• An item of P5,000 was approved in the account, corresponding to a transaction involving the repurchase of property.
• The property on Camba Street had been sold with a pacto de retro to Angela Sabinosa, whereby the testator could repurchase it within six months.
• The transaction was executed during the lifetime of the testator and the P5,000 disbursement was considered the recognized proceeds from that previous sale.
• Attorney’s Fees
• The account included an item of P485 for services rendered by Attorney Perfecto Gabriel.
• The administratrix maintained that the correct fee should have been P325, but the court’s appraisal valued the services (document preparation, conferences, money advanced for registration fees and documentary stamps) at the higher amount.
• The appellant objected based on the subsequent declaration of the instruments prepared by the attorney as fictitious and void.

Assignments of Error by the Appellant, Carmen Adriano

• First Assignment: Challenged the additional compensation granted to the three employees.
• Second Assignment: Questioned the payment to Ulpiano Sarmiento (dismissed employee) and the payment to M. Angeles regarding commission retention.
• Third Assignment: Contested the expense item of P1,099.35 for business operations.
• Fourth Assignment: Objected to the P200 expense for the deceased husband’s hospitalization.
• Fifth Assignment: Questioned the P5,000 transaction related to the repurchase of the property.
• Sixth Assignment: Disputed the P485 paid to Attorney Perfecto Gabriel for legal services rendered.

Issue:

• Whether the additional compensation for the three employees was unauthorized or should be upheld as valid, given that it was evidenced as having been authorized by the testator in life.
• Whether the payments made to Ulpiano Sarmiento and M. Angeles were justified, including the applicability of article 302 of the Code of Commerce in paying salaries post-dismissal.
• Whether the item of P1,099.35 covering commissions, extra labor salaries, and related operational expenses was legally incurred and properly approved as part of the estate’s administration.
• Whether the P200 expense for the deceased husband’s last illness qualifies as a lawful and justifiable administrative expense, notwithstanding the source of funds used for the withdrawal.
• Whether the transaction involving the repurchase of property for P5,000 was genuine or merely fictitious, and if the disbursement was properly recorded.
• Whether the attorney’s fees of P485 for services rendered by Attorney Perfecto Gabriel were reasonable in view of the fact that the instruments he prepared were later deemed void.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)