Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8036; L-8037) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Florencio Fabillo and Josefa Tana v. Hon. IAC & Alfredo Murillo (G.R. No. 68838, March 11, 1991), Florencio Fabillo and his wife Josefa Tana (later substituted by their heirs Gregorio Fabillo, Roman Fabillo, Cristeta F. Maglinte, and Antonio Fabillo) petitioned for review of the Intermediate Appellate Court’s decision favoring their former lawyer, Alfredo M. Murillo (substituted by his heirs Fiamita M. Murillo, Flor M. Agcaoili, and Charito M. Babol). In her 1957 will, Justina Fabillo bequeathed to Florencio a house and lot in San Salvador Street, Palo, Leyte (Tax Declaration No. 19335), and to her husband, Gregorio D. Brioso, a parcel in Pugahanay, Palo, Leyte. After probate in 1962, the court reserved ownership of the San Salvador property for separate litigation. In August 1964, Florencio engaged Murillo by letter and formal contract of services, agreeing to pay a 40% contingent fee of “whatever benefit” derived from both the special probate proceedings and Civil Case No. Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8036; L-8037) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Testate estate and reservation of litigation
- Justina Fabillo’s 1957 will bequeathed a house and lot (Tax Dec. No. 19335) to her brother Florencio and land in Pugahanay to her husband.
- Probate court approved partition on June 2, 1962, reserving ownership of the San Salvador property for separate litigation.
- Engagement of counsel and service contract
- On August 9, 1964, Murillo wrote Florencio a letter agreeing to file suit for an ₱86 filing fee and proposing a 40% contingent fee of the property’s value.
- On August 22, 1964, they executed a written “Contract of Services” stipulating Murillo’s 40% fee of any benefit (sale price, mortgage proceeds, rentals, damages, or attorney’s fees) and expense sharing.
- Compromise and assertion of rights
- Civil Case No. 3532 terminated on October 29, 1964 by compromise, recognizing Florencio as owner of both properties.
- Murillo asserted a 40% interest, took possession of portions, and leased the Pugahanay property.
- Subsequent litigation and lower court decisions
- In 1970 Murillo sued Fabillo spouses and heirs to declare his 40% ownership and recover annual produce, P5,000 damages, and fees.
- CFI Leyte (1975) upheld the contract, declared Murillo 40% owner of both properties, and awarded him produce shares, income for 1974–75, and costs.
- On reconsideration (1976) the CFI modified awards: 40% ownership, ₱2,450 for 1967–73 produce, 1974–75 income, ₱300 fees, costs.
- The Intermediate Appellate Court (1984) affirmed in toto.
Issues:
- Whether the 40% contingent fee contract violates Civil Code Article 1491(5).
- Whether the contract grants Murillo actual ownership of 40% of the properties or a fee equal to 40% of their value.
- If valid, what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)