BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, EXECUTOR AND APPELLANT, VS. JOSE J. GONZALES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

In a statement of accounts submitted by the Bank of the Philippine
Islands in its capacity as executor of the testate estate of the late
Graciana de Jesus pending before the Court of First Instance of Manila
(Special Proceeding No. 18033), two items were disallowed on the ground
that they are not expenses chargeable against the estate. One refers to
the sum of P1,461.00 representing the cost of the transcript of
stenographic notes taken at the hearing conducted in connection with
Civil Case No. 22828 of the same court which was instituted by said
Bank against Jose J. Gonzales to annul a certain deed of donation inter vivos executed
by the deceased in favor of Gonzales. In said case one Angustia
Jimenez, legatee of the parcels of land covered by the deed of donation
intervened. The second item refers to the sum of P56.00 representing
the cost of printing the brief filed by the Bank in its capacity as
executor in the appeal it interposed from a resolution of the Land
Registration Commission regarding a consulta requested from said Commission in connection with the annotation of a notice of lis pendens involving
the same property. The appeal is still pending and was docketed as G.
R. No. L-12128 of the Supreme Court. In view of the disallowance of the
two items above-mentioned, the Bank took the present appeal.

It appears that in the last will and testament left by the late
Graciana de Jesus dated February 1, 1945, which was admitted to probate
in Special Proceeding No. 18133 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, one Angustia Jimenez was named legatee of three parcels of land
situated in the City of Manila, which were subsequently made the
subject of a deed of donation inter vivos executed by the
deceased in favor of Jose J. Gonzales. In view of this subsequent
donation, the Bank of the Philippine Islands, in its capacity as
executor of the estate of the deceased, filed Civil Case No. 22828
before the same court against Gonzales praying for the annulment of the
deed of donation with the purpose of recovering the parcels of land
devised to Angustia Jimenez. To implement the action taken in said
case, the executor filed a notice of lis pendens which was annotated on the certificate of title covering the lands in question.

Meanwhile, the lands were mortgaged by Gonzales in favor of Ramon
Eugenio who, because of Gonzales’ failure to pay his obligation, took
action to foreclose the mortgage. In the foreclosure sale that ensued,
Mrs. Consuelo O. Vda. de Eugenio, as administratrix of the estate of
her late husband, became the highest bidder. After the corresponding
deed of sale was executed in her favor, she requested the register of
deeds of Manila to issue a new title in her name free from any lien or
incumbrance, to which the Bank of the Philippine Islands, in its
capacity as executor, objected. The question was taken in consulta to the Land Registration Commission who ruled against the annotation of the notice of lis pendens,
so the Bank appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, and in connection
with this appeal, the Bank spent P56.00 as cost of printing of its
brief. The item of P1,461.00 represents the cost of the stenographic
notes taken at the hearing of Civil Case No. 22828 paid by the Bank in
its capacity as executor.

The appellant now contends that the trial court erred in disallowing
these two items because they represent expenses which were incurred by
it in its capacity as executor and as an incident to the performance of
its duties under the law in pursuance of the provisions of the will of
the deceased Graciana de Jesus which was duly admitted to probate.
Oppositor Gonzales, on the other hand, contends that the disallowance
was proper because the purpose of the action taken by the Bank in Civil
Case No. 22828 was to annul certain deed of donation covering the same
parcels of land devised in the will to the intervenor Angustia Jimenez
and, hence, the latter would appear to be the real party in interest
who should institute the action, she being the only one to be benefited
if the action would prove successful. In other words, it is oppositor’s
contention that the action taken by the Bank was merely to accommodate
Angustia Jimenez and so it is not fair that the estate be made to pay
the expenses incident to such accommodation.

There is no merit in appellee’s contention. While it is true that
the subject of the alleged deed of donation are the same properties
which were devised to Angustia Jimenez in the will of the late Graciana
de Jesus, we should not however overlook the fact that the Bank of the
Philippine Islands was appointed by the probate court as executor with
the will annexed charged with the particular duty of carrying out the
provisions of the will. And since one of the mandates of the will,
which was duly probated, is to devise the properties in question to
Angustia Jimenez, it would appear to be its clear duty to take all the
necessary steps, legal or otherwise, to take possession thereof and
turn them over to whom they belong. Thus, “It is the primary duty of
the executor or administrator, to the performance of which his
authority of course extends, to collect the assets of the estate for
the benefit of both the creditors and the next of kin or legatee * * *”
(33 C. J. S., p. 1136), and as an incident to the performance of this
duty, our rules provide that “an executor or administrator shall be
allowed the necessary expenses in the care, management and settlement
of the estate” (Section 7, Rule 86). Since the two items in question
were spent in connection with the performance of the duty of appellant
to gather all the assets of the estate in order that they may be dealt
with in accordance with the provisions of the will, they may be
considered as administration expenses that may be properly charged
against the estate.

Wherefore, the order appealed from insofar as the two items in
question are concerned, is set aside, with costs against appellee. Said
items are hereby allowed as expenses of administration.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David JJ., concur.