NORA VILLAMAYOR (ALSO KNOWN AS NORA AUNOR), PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF QUEZON CITY AND LUCIANO…

Petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the orders
of the respondent Judge dated April 3,
1975 and September 2, 1976.

In Special Proceedings No. QC-00657 of the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court of Quezon City, entitled:  “In the Matter of the Guardianship of
the Minor Nora Villamayor, popularly known as Nora Aunor; Norberto Amoranto,
Guardian,” the herein private respondent, Luciano M.
Dominguez, filed a motion praying for the payment of his monthly legal
retainer’s fees of P3,000.00 from May, 1971 to May, 1974.

On December 4, 1974,
an order was issued by the respondent court directing the guardian of the
estate of the minor to pay attorney’s fees to Atty. Luciano
M. Dominguez, herein private respondent, the amount of P108,000.00, within 30
days from receipt of the order.

On February 7, 1975,
Atty. Dominguez asked for the issuance of a writ of execution, alleging
non-compliance with said order, but the court granted the ward a grace period
of 15 days within which to comply with the order of December 4, 1974.

The grace period given the ward elapsed without her complying
with the order of December 4, 1974,
so that on April 3, 1975,
the respondent court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution against the
ward for P108,000.00, plus legal interests thereon from December 4, 1974.^[1]  The corresponding writ of execution was
issued on the same day.

Thereafter, the private respondent manifested that he had been
paid the sum of P113,011.35, in satisfaction of the judgment credit and the
amount of P5,324.55 remains unpaid; and that while he had received from the
estate of the minor the amount of P43,592.05 on July 21, 1975, the said amount
was for the settlement of his other claims against the ward, but not as partial
payment of the judgment credit.

The petitioner also manifested that the private respondent had
collected and/or received from her the total amount of P155,603.40 or
P47,603.40 in excess of the amount the private respondent was granted in the
order of December 4, 1974.

On March 10, 1976,
the petitioner filed a motion with the respondent court to declare the order of
April 3, 1975 null and void
insofar as it requires the payment of interests on the amount awarded to
respondent Dominguez and for the refund of the excess amount paid by the
petitioner to the private respondent.^[2]

On September 2, 1976,
the respondent court issued an order, the dispositive
portion^[3]
of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE,

“1)  Atty. Luciano
Dominguez’s request for payment embodied in his Manifestation of January 28,
and June 10, 1976 is granted only up to the amount of P4,466.71.  Within fifteen (15) days from receipt, ward
Nora Villamayor and her guardianship estate is hereby
ordered to pay the same, under pain of contempt;

“2)  Ward’s Motion of March 10, 1976 is hereby DENIED, for the time being; and

“3)  Let this case be set for reception of evidence
re application of payment in the sum of P43,592.05 on July 21, 1975, on October
11, 1976 at 8:00 o’clock in the morning.”

Now claiming that the order of April 3, 1975, directing the
payment of interests on the amount of P108,000.00 and the order of September 2,
1976, specifying the amount to be paid as interests, to have been issued in
excess of jurisdiction; and that there is no appeal or other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the ward Nora Villamayor filed the instant petition to annul and set
aside the said orders.

The petitioner argues that the order of December 4, 1974,
ordering the estate of the ward to pay Atty. Dominguez the amount of
P108,000.00, had already become final and executory
so that the orders of April 3, 1975 and September 2, 1976, amending or
modifying the order of December 4, 1974 by requiring the payment of interests
on the amount adjudicated, were illegally issued.

The defense is estoppel, in that the
petitioner had acquiesced to, or recognized and ratified the partial execution
of the judgment ordering the payment of interests on the judgment credit. 
The private respondent more particularly refers to the writs of
garnishment served by the sheriff upon petitioner’s debtors and private
respondent was able to collect the amount of P112,011.38 as of October 23,
1975, an amount which included part of the interest on the judgment credit, and
the statement of counsel for the petitioner wherein she allegedly waived
petitioner’s right to question the payment of interest on the judgment credit
of P108,000.00.

In Robles vs. Timario,^[4]
the Court ruled that it is beyond the power of the courts to issue a writ of
execution for the payment of the principal obligation with the interest
thereon, when the judgment contains no provision on the interest to be paid on
the judgment credit.  Considering that in
the instant case, the order of December 4, 1974, ordering the payment of P108,000.00 to the private respondent,
did not provide for the collection of interest on the said amount, the Order of
April 3, 1975, directing the issuance of a writ of execution against the
petitioner for the amount of P108,000.00, plus legal interest thereon on
December 4, 1974, was clearly
made without or in excess of jurisdiction.

The plea of estoppel is without merit,
for estoppel cannot validate a void order, issued
without jurisdiction since jurisdiction exists as a matter of law, and may not
be conferred by the consent of the parties, or by estoppel.  Besides, it cannot be said for certain that
the petitioner had acquiesced to the payment of interest on the amount of
P108,000.00 in view of the petitioner’s claim for the refund of the amount
collected by the private respondent in excess 
of the said amount of P108,000.00.^[5]

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the orders of the
respondent court dated April 3, 1975
and September 2, 1976 are
hereby annulled and set aside insofar as the said orders require the payment of
interest on the amount of P108,000.00. 
Costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, Aquino, and
Santos, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 79.

^[2]
Id., p. 4.

^[3]
Id., pp. 9, 13.

^[4]
107 Phil. 809.

^[5]
See Motion, p. 82, rollo.