G.R. No. L-22174. July 21, 1967
ESPERANZA P. DE HARDEN, PLAINTIFF, VS. FRED M. HARDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. AURORA R. DE RECTO, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CLARO M. RECTO, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE SALUM…
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
Fred Harden, an American citizen, and Esperanza Perez were
married in the Philippines
on December 14, 1917. They lived together, acquiring considerable
conjugal properties, until 1938 when they separated. In July 1941, Mrs. Harden hired the late Claro M. Recto as her counsel in the suit she was
contemplating to file against her husband.
In their contract, she agreed, inter alia,
to pay Recto 20% of her share in the conjugal partnership. On July
12, 1941, Mrs. Harden, thru Recto, filed her complaint for administration
and/or accounting of the conjugal properties against Mr. Harden, and Jose Salumbides, herein oppositor-appellant,
as his attorney-in-fact. The war
suspended the proceedings. After
liberation, the records of the case were reconstituted and on November 20, 1946, the conjugal
properties of the Harden spouses were placed under receivership. On October
31, 1949, the lower court rendered judgment for Mrs. Harden. Mr. Harden appealed to this Court[1]
and then left the Philippines. Mrs. Harden must have followed her husband
for in January 29, 1952, an amicable
settlement was effected between them in Canada. As a consequence thereof, Recto was instructed
by Mrs. Harden to discontinue the proceedings.
On February 20, 1952,
Recto filed a motion in the Supreme Court to establish his attorney’s charging
lien. The Hardens opposed. This Court, by resolution dated July 22,
1952, remanded the case to the trial court to determine the
amount of Recto’s attorney’s fees. But
all the ancillary writs and processes issued in the case were dissolved except
the receivership on the conjugal properties, which was maintained. Subsequently, the lower court, after
hearing, held that Recto was entitled to P384,110.97 as counsel fees. Mrs. Harden appealed to this Court[2]
which upheld Recto but modified the amount to P304,110.97 only.
On January 22, 1957,
Recto moved for execution of the
judgment. The lower court having granted
the motion, the Hardens went on certiorari[3]
to this Court. We dismissed the
petition on August 2, 1957 for lack of merit. Recto was then able to secure an alias writ
of execution. Again this was questioned
on certiorari[4]
by the Hardens in this Court. On February 10, 1958, We upheld Recto
once more. This finally enabled the
latter to levy upon the stocks and other properties of the Hardens, the public
sales of which realized P100,805.00. A balance of P203,305.97 thus remained
in Recto’s favor.
On July 2, 1958,
Recto moved ex parte to
levy on other shares of stock owned by the Hardens but registered in the name
of Salumbides, including the 410,638 shares in the Surigao
Consolidated Mining Co. Upon being notified
that the 410,638 Surigao shares,
inter alia, were to be sold at public auction, Salumbides
filed an opposition claiming that he owned said shares, the same being registered
in his name. This was denied. His motion
to reconsider the denial also met the same fate, the lower court holding that Salumbides did not own the said Surigao
shares of stock. Whereupon, Salumbides appealed to this Court.[5]
We dismissed the same on December 22,
1958, for being frivolous. The motion to reconsider subsequently filed
failed to save the appeal. On April 21, 1959, the said 410,638
shares were sold at public
auction for P147,679.97[sic] leaving an unsatisfied judgment balance of P55,624.00 in Recto’s favor.
The next incident concerns the return to the receiver of the P20,531.90 cash dividends from December 14, 1955 to December 14, 1956, received by Salumbides on the same 410,638 Surigao
shares. As early as April 4, 1957, Recto had already moved that Salumbides be
ordered to deliver to the receiver all the dividends on the said shares which
were under receivership. On July 1, 1957, the lower court issued
an order requiring Salumbides to “turn over to
the receiver x x
x all
the dividends he has already received from the Surigao Mining Company, Inc.” Salumbides‘
motion to reconsider this order was denied.
On February 10, 1958,
Recto moved for a writ of execution to implement the order of July 1, 1957. This was approved on February 21, 1958. Salumbides filed a
motion to reconsider, claiming that he owned the dividends pertaining to the
410,638 shares. On July 30, 1959, the lower court ordered Salumbides to comply with the order of July 1, 1957 by depositing P20,531.90 in the
Commercial Bank & Trust Co. The
latter moved for reconsideration alleging, inter alia, that he had spent P45,900.99 as expenses for
the Hardens from 1955 to 1957 and for which he must be reimbursed. When this was denied, a second motion to
reconsider was filed, Salumbides claiming that the
P20,531.90 cash dividends had already been disbursed for the benefit of the
Harden family. On August 29, 1961, the lower court, after hearing
and presentation of evidence, denied the second motion to reconsider, holding
that the alleged incurring of expenses by Salumbides
was a mere afterthought concocted by him.
Preliminary steps were taken by Salumbides
to appeal this order. Meanwhile, on October 2, 1960, Recto died and his
wife, as his administratrix, was substituted as
claimant. On October 7, 1961, the lower court required Salumbides to submit a P25,000.00 supersedeas
bond to prevent execution pending appeal.
This compelled Salumbides to abandon the
intended appeal. On October 23, 1961, he deposited P20,531.90 in the
bank in compliance with the order of August
29, 1961. On November 21, 1961, Mrs. Recto, with
court approval, withdrew P25,000.00 from the Harden funds under receivership
in the bank, thus reducing the judgment balance to P30,624.00.
On November 27, 1961,
Mrs. Recto moved for full compliance with the order of July 1, 1957
to satisfy the remaining judgment balance, relying upon a statement[6]
issued by the Surigao Consolidated that from April 15, 1950 to July 2, 1955, Salumbides
had received all the cash dividends on the P410,638 shares, amounting to
P60,797.29. Resolving the motion and
opposition interposed by Salumbides, the lower court
on December 11, 1962
ordered Salumbides to deposit P30,624.00 in the
Commercial Bank and Trust Company for final satisfaction of the judgment
balance in Recto’s favor. This is the
incident under the present appeal, first taken to the Court of Appeals but
subsequently certified to Us.
Appellant Salumbides first submits that
the order of July 1, 1957
which is sought to be fully
enforced did not include the cash dividends received by him before December 14, 1955 since Recto’s
motion of April 4, 1957 was
limited to those dividends received after said date. This is without merit. The dispositive
portion of the order of July 1, 1957, which reads:
“Finding the said petition to be well founded this Court
hereby orders Jose Salumbides to turn over to the
Receiver, Atty. Juan S. Ong all the dividends that he
has already received from the Surigao Consolidated
Mining Company, Inc.”
clearly includes all dividends received
as of then by Salumbides. The Surigao
Consolidated statement dated April 5,
1957 shows that the cash dividends on the 410,638 shares from April 15, 1950 to July 1955 had also
been delivered to and already received by Salumbides. And the lower court found, in its order of August 29, 1961, that Salumbides never appealed the order of July 1, 1957.
Hence, the same can no longer be questioned now.
Salumbides would also argue that those
dividends had already been disbursed by him for the benefit of the Harden
family. This question, however, had
already been raised and argued twice before the lower court which tried
and decided it adversely in the order of August 29, 1961.
Although Salumbides filed his notice of appeal
and appeal bond, the appeal was never really pursued. In fact, on October 23, 1961, he manifested to the lower court that
he had already complied with the order of August 29, 1961, thus making the same final and conclusive
as against him.
The defenses of (a) bar by prior judgments, (b) prescription,
extinctive and acquisitive, (c) laches, and (d)
waiver, set up by Salumbides, are without merit. For the first, he would rely upon the lower
court’s orders of December 7, 1953
and January 24, 1956, which
declared that the receivership did not include future dividends on the shares
of stock. But the more recent order of August 29, 1961 expressly declared
these orders erroneous and already superseded and reversed by the later court
orders of December 14, 1955,
July 1, 1957 and February 21, 1958.
There could be no prescription, extinctive or acquisitive. Even if the period for bringing the action be
five years as appellant suggests, still the same has not yet lapsed. The dividends being litigated were declared
from April 15, 1950 to July 2, 1955. But
the receiver’s letter of May 9, 1953[7]
asking for the dividends and claimant’s motions of November 4, 1953, December 15, 1955,
April 4, 1957, February 10, 1958 and November 27, 1961, to the same
effect, seasonably interrupted the prescriptive period. These extrajudicial and judicial demands also
negative laches on claimant’s part.
Salumbides could not acquire the
dividends in question by prescription since he possessed them, not in concept
of owner, adverse to the Hardens, but rather as attorney-in-fact of Mr. Harden. He first claimed ownership only in his
omnibus opposition dated July 1, 1957. But two years later, or on August 24,
1959, in his
motion to reconsider, Salumbides admitted that these
dividends belonged to the Hardens.
Neither is Recto’s demand for the P20,531.00 cash dividends which
were declared from December 14, 1955 to December 14, 1956, a waiver of the previous
dividends. He merely wanted to satisfy
his judgment credit from among any of the Harden assets available. Since the later dividends failed to fully
satisfy the judgment, Recto could still enforce his valid claim against the
previous dividends. As to the cash
dividend of October 3, 1955, the order of December 14, 1955 is very clear that it
“shall not constitute a precedent with respect to the disposition of all
dividends whether already declared or to be hereinafter declared.” The defense of waiver, therefore, fails.
Lastly, appellant would insist that upon the death of Mr. Harden
in Canada on May 1,
1959, or
during the pendency of the proceedings, Recto’s
claim should have been forthwith dismissed and filed in the administration proceedings
of Mr. Harden’s estate. But appellant erroneously assumes that
Recto’s claim is a “money claim” under the Rules[8]
when it is neither a claim nor a judgment for money directed against the decedent, Mr. Harden. Recto’s
claim is founded on a personal obligation of Mrs. Harden. But granting that Recto’s claim is a money
claim against Mr. Harden, that would not help appellant any. We have already ruled[9]
that a charging lien established on the property in litigation to secure
payment of attorney’s fees partakes of the nature of a collateral security or
of a lien on real or personal property, the enforcement of which need not be
made in the administration proceedings.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby
affirmed. Costs against oppositor-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., on official leave.
[1]
Harden v. Harden, L-3687.
[2]
In the Matter of the Claim for Attorney’s Fees – Recto v. Harden, L-6897, Nov. 29, 1956.
[3]
Harden v. Bayona, L-12611.
[4]
Harden v. Bayona, L-13386.
[5]
Harden v. Harden, Recto v. Salumbides,
L-14751.
[6]
Record on Appeal, pp. 466-467.
[7]
Record on Appeal, pp. 28-29.
[8]
Sec. 5, Rule 86, Rev. Rules of Court.
[9]
Olave v. Canlas,
L-12707, Feb. 28, 1962.