INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED PATRICIA MALONZO DE MALAPITAN. CARLOS GOZON, ADMINISTRATOR AND APPELLEE, VS. ISRAEL M. MALAPITAN, ET. AL., OPPOSITORS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Quezon City Branch, dated February 24, 1956, which reads:

“Upon due consideration of the motion of counsel for
the administrator under date of February 6, 1956, and the opposition
thereto of the oppositors filed on February 11, 1956, and finding the
said motion of the administrator of February 6, 1956 to be well
founded, the administrator is hereby allowed to withdraw from the funds
of the estate the sum of P300.00, representing advance payment of the
attorney’s fees of Attys. Ereñeta & Munda, for their services
rendered in this case for the administrator.

“As regards the
urgent motion for reconsideration of the oppositors filed on February
3, 1956, it appearing that the amount of P200.00 had already been
delivered to the stenographers concerned, it is therefore unnecessary
to pass upon the same.”

The appeal was first taken to the Court of Appeals, but after it was
submitted there for decision, and after studying the case, said court
certified it to us on the ground that it involved only questions of law.

The appealed order itself fails to give us the facts involved in
this case, or even an idea of the same. We have carefully examined the
record on appeal but the facts gathered from said record are quite
meagre, so we have to supplement the statement of facts with those
narrated in the brief for the appellants, Israel M. Malapitan et al. We
have to confine ourselves to said brief, for the reason that appellee
Carlos Gozon failed to file his brief with the Court of Appeals and by
resolution, of said court of June 24, 1958, the appeal was given due
course without, said appellee’s brief. No attempt was made to file such
brief for the appellee before us, and although the parties were on
December 5, 1958 notified that the case had been included in the
January calendar, which would be read on January 12, 1959, neither
party had asked for the hearing and so the case was deemed submitted
for decision.

From the brief of the appellants it would appear that Patricia
Malonzo de Malapitan died, leaving nine children. Four of them, named
Israel, Hospito, Hortencia and Estela, all surnamed Malapitan, are
herein considered as oppositors-appellants, and the remaining five,
Crisogono, Fabian, Vicente and Tolomeo and a deceased brother,
represented by his widow Feliciana Martinez, were in favor of the
appointment of one Carlos Gozon as administrator of the estate. The
administration of the estate of Patricia Malonzo de Malapitan was taken
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, in
special proceedings No. 2145. Carlos Gozon was apparently appointed
first as special administrator, and later as regular administrator,
over the objection of the four heirs called oppositors-appellants. Said
administrator filed an inventory of the properties supposed to belong
to the estate. The oppositors, through their counsel, asked that
certain properties included in the inventory be excluded therefrom
because they belong to said oppositors. So, the trial court
commissioned a deputy clerk of court to receive evidence on the claims
of ownership and the commissioner availed himself of the services of
the court stenographers to take down notes of the proceedings. The
administrator supposedly employed attorneys Ereñeta and Munda as
counsel.

On January 27, 1956, Atty. Munda, as counsel for administrator
Gozon, filed a “Petition to Set Attorney’s Fee and to Withdraw Some
Amount to Pay Transcript of Record”. No copy of said petition was
served on the oppositors or their counsel. Acting upon said petition,
the Rizal Court of First Instance, Quezon City Branch, by order of
January 28, 1956, authorized the administrator to withdraw from the
Philippine National Bank funds in the amount of P200.00 to be paid to
the stenographers for the transcript of their notes taken in connection
with the hearing of the motion (presumably before the commissioner) to
exclude certain properties from the inventory. The same order required
counsel for administrator to submit an itemized list of services
rendered to the estate.

On February 3, 1956, attorneys Munda and Ereñeta as counsel for the
administrator, submitted said list of services rendered. On the same
date, Israel Malapitan and his co-oppositors filed an “Urgent Motion
for Reconsideration” of the order of January 28, asking that the
authority granted to the administrator to withdraw P200.00 from the
bank to pay to the stenographers of the court be revoked and that if
the amount had already been paid, the stenographers be ordered to
return the same. On February 4, 1956, the trial court issued an order
directing the administrator to furnish the oppositors a copy of his
petition of January 27, 1956. Instead of furnishing said oppositors a
copy of his petition, the administrator, through his counsel, filed on
February 8, a “Motion to Withdraw Money to Pay Transcript of Record and
Attorney’s Fees” and served copies thereof to the oppositors. The
oppositors objected to said motion, alleging among others that the
fixing of attorney’s fees was premature, and to all appearances,
unmeritorious and out of place, at the state of the proceedings. On
February 24, 1956, the lower court issued the order now on appeal and
reproduced at the beginning of this opinion. A motion for
reconsideration of said order was denied an April 12, 1956 for “lack of
sufficient merits”.

Going back to the list of services rendered filed by the attorneys
for the administrator, said list contains 26 items, some referring to
appearances at the hearings for the appointment of an administrator,
others referring to appearances before the court for examination of
certain persons regarding property of the deceased supposed to have
been concealed, still other appearances refer to those made before the
Provincial Fiscal of Pasig, Rizal, and also before the City Fiscal of
Manila, and some appearances referring to those made in connection with
Civil Case No. 3640 of the Court of First Instance of Pasig, Rizal.

At first, we were puzzled about the appearances made by counsel in
connection with criminal cases before the Fiscal of Manila and the
Fiscal of Rizal, and Civil Case No. 3640, but the brief of the
oppositors-appellants sheds some light on this matter. According to
said brief, Civil Case No. 8640, docketed in the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, refers to a suit by administrator Gozon against
Israel de Malapitan, seeking to take possession of a certain store
denominated “Mission Auto Supply”, located at the Bonifacio Monument
circle, Caloocan, Rizal, which the administrator presumably believed
belong to the deceased Patricia, but which Israel claimed to be his
property.

The same brief for the appellants states that administrator Gozon
supposedly by the use of force took possession of a Studebaker sedan by
taking it out from the garage of Israel without Israel’s knowledge or
consent; so Israel filed a complaint for robbery against Gozon and his
companions with the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal. This
might explain the appearances made by the attorneys employed by Gozon
as his counsel before the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal.

Then, there was another complaint filed this time with the Manila
City Fiscal’s Office by Vicente Malapitan, one of the group of heirs
identified with the administrator, against his brother Israel,
oppositor, for alleged falsification of a public document for having
registered his store “Mission Auto Supply” with the Bureau of Commerce,
representing to said bureau that the store belonged to him. This may
explain the appearances of the attorneys for the administrator before
the City Fiscal of Manila.

The position taken by the oppositors-appellants is that much of the
services rendered by the supposed attorneys for the administrator and
their appearances in court and before the Fiscals of Rizal and Manila
were really not for the administrator and for the benefit of the
estate, but rather at the instance of and for the benefit of some of
the heirs in their legal fight with the oppositors, and so payment for
said services partially should be made by said heirs and in part by the
administrator in his personal capacity.

In order to determine the value of said legal services of said
attorneys and for whose interest they were rendered, a hearing should
be held at which both parties should be present. So, at this stage of
the proceedings, it would appear to us rather premature to authorize
the payment for said services from the funds of the estate. So was the
authority given by the trial court to the administrator to withdraw
P200.00 in order to pay for the transcript to be made by the
stenographers employed by the deputy clerk of court designated as
commissioner to hold hearings. According to the oppositors-appellants,
said transcript has not yet been made and so it is difficult to
ascertain the number of pages of said transcript, assuming that each
page thereof would cost P1.00, to say nothing of the fact that it
remains to be seen whether said transcript would really be necessary
and needed by the administrator in connection with his administration.
In this we are inclined to agree with oppositors-appellants.

In view of the foregoing, the appealed order is hereby set aside in
so far as it authorizes the withdrawal of P300.00 from the funds of the
estate in order to pay counsel for the administrator on account of
their legal services. As regards the P200.00 authorized by the trial
court to be paid to the stenographers, said payment should be held in
abeyance, without prejudice to its eventual payment to said
stenographers should it be established that it was a necessary expense
of the administration. If said amount had already been paid, the
stenographers should return said amount and upon their failure to do
so, the administrator should refund said sum to the estate from his
personal funds. Appellee will pay the costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Labrador, J., took no part.