IN RE WILL OF GREGORIO NATIVIDAD. JOSE ALVAREZ, CREDITOR AND APPELLEE, VS. CASIMIRO NATIVIDAD ET AL., OPPONENTS AND APPELLANTS.

According to the evidence of record and to the decision rendered by this
court in Natividad vs. Natividad (51 Phil., 613), on March 2, 1928, from which
the present case originated, Gregorio Natividad died on May 30, 1926. One of the
heirs, a natural grandson by the name of Alfredo Natividad, propounded a will in
the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, alleged to have been made by the
deceased on August 27, 1923. Casimiro and Gregorio Natividad, together with the
other heirs named Gregorio, Maria, and Miguel Estela, the last two minors being
represented by their guardian, opposed the probate of the will.

At the hearing of the case, Attorney Vicente Ribaya appeared for the
proponent, and attorneys Pablo Sibulo, Fernando Alvarez, and Jose Pefias for the
opponents, the Estela heirs being represented in the case by their uncle,
Casimiro Natividad. After the proponent’s evidence was all in, the court,
addressing counsel for the opponents, Alvarez, Sibulo, and Peñas, asked:

“Have you any evidence? To which attorney Alvarez answered:

“We waive the presentation of evidence, your Honor, and pray only that
instead of appointing proponent Alfredo Natividad administrator, Your Honor,
name one of the testator’s children. We propose Mr. Casimiro Natividad. Or, we
pray that at least in the interests of harmony, Mr. Casimiro Natividad be
appointed coadministrator.

“COURT. (To Mr. Alvarez.) And you withdraw your opposition to the probate of
the will?

“ALVAREZ and SIBULO. We do.

“ALVAREZ. We withdraw our opposition, but pray your Honor to appoint Mr.
Casimiro Natividad coadministrator.”

The court admitted the will to probate and appointed Alfredo Natividad
executor, fixing the required bond at P2000.

Casimiro Natividad was not present at the hearing, but the trial judge was
aware that he was in the courthouse. Casimiro Natividad, however, had not
authorized his lawyers to compromise the litigation, and on the same day (July
31, 1926) the will was admitted to probate, he entered his objection to the
will. And on September 14, 1926, a petition under section 113 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to set aside the order admitting the will to probate was filed
on behalf of Casimiro Natividad and Gregorio, Maria, and Miguel Estela, the last
two being minors represented by their guardian. This petition and a subsequent
motion for reconsideration were denied by the court, whence the appeal in said
case of Natividad vs. Natividad, supra.

In deciding that appeal, the Supreme Court relied upon section 27 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, which provides that lawyers cannot, without special
authority, compromise their client’s litigation, or receive anything in
discharge of a client’s claim but the full amount in cash, citing the rulings of
the Supreme Court of Georgia in Davis vs. First National Bank of Blakely
([1913], 139 Ga., 702; 46 L. R. A. [N. S.], 750); Holker vs. Parker
([1813], 7 Cranch, 436) ; and Jordan vs. Russell (8 Ohio Dec. Reprint,
467).

Further considering that the case involved the interests of two minors, the
court decided to grant a new trial to bring out all the pertinent evidence.
Accordingly it vacated the order in question and remanded the record for trial
to determine if the will of Gregorio Natividad should be admitted to
probate.

On April 30, 1927, or a year prior to the decision of this court
above-mentioned, the committee on claims and appraisals adopted the following
resolution:

“Whereas no claim having been presented since March 21st with regard to the
testamentary proceedings of the Estate of the late. Gregorio Natividad, although
publication has been made in the newspaper ‘Bicolandia’ published in the
capital, Naga, and notices have been posted in the most public places of this
locality as well as in other municipalities of Partido Lagonoy, all further
proceedings in the premises are hereby suspended with respect to the undersigned
committee, unless the Court of First Instance orders that they should continue
acting in said capacity, should any claim be presented hereafter. Resolved until
further orders. (Sgd.) Sebastian Moll, Member.

(Sgd.) FRANCISCO ALGARATE, Member.“

The record having been remanded to the Court of First Instance of Camarines
Sur, Casimiro Natividad, the testator’s son was appointed coadministrator of the
estate on October 4, 1928. On November 9, 1928, Dr. Jose Alvarez moved the court
to extend the session of the committee thirty days, in order that it might hear
and pass upon his P10,774 credit, for which he was about to put in a claim. On
November 27, 1928, counsel for the opponents answered this motion, objecting
thereto. On January 10, 1929, the court ordered the committee to act thirty days
longer to give the movant, Doctor Alvarez, an opportunity to file his claim. On
January 29th, counsel for the opponents filed another motion praying that
Sebastian Moll and Francisco Algarate be removed from the committee on claims,
and that Lino Cabaero and Pedro Briones be named in their stead, upon the
following grounds:

“1. The said members are incompetent to discharge their duties.

“2. The said members committed perjury.

“3. The appointment of said members was recommended by Alfredo Natividad
whose interest is diametrically opposed to the herein oppositors.

“4. The newly proposed appointees are competent and honest
persons.”

On January 26, 1930 (this should be 1929) Casimiro Natividad, the
coadministrator, received the following notice:

“Mr. CASIMIRO NATIVIDAD: The committee on claims and appraisals with
reference to the estate of the late Gregorio Natividad is now sitting in special
session to hear Dr. Alvarez’s claim for professional fees in the amount of
P10,210. Inasmuch as this case will adversely affect the heirs, you should be
present to oppose this claim. We shall await you. Yours; Mr. FRANCISCO
ALGARATE.”

Upon receipt of this communication, Casimiro Natividad sent back the
following reply:

“I cannot at this time go there I expect— (the next word is illegible because
the figure ‘300’ has been scrawled over it to show the page of the record
containing this reply) — the decision of the Manila lawyers and the other heirs
who are not here. Yours, C. Natividad.”

On January 27, 1929, the committee filed its additional report reading as
follows:

“On January 26, 1929, at the reopening of its session by this committee on
claims and appraisals, Dr. Jose Alvarez and the executor-administrator Alfredo
Natividad appeared, but not the coadministrator, Casimiro Natividad, who asked
to be excused because he Was still awaiting his lawyers instructions.
Nevertheless the claimant-creditor Jose Alvarez served him with notice in due
form, and this committee before reopening its session sent him the official
notice (see appendix No. 1) attached to this report.

“At 2 p. m. the committee reopened its session to hear and pass upon Dr. Jose
Alvarez’s claim as set forth in his pleading which, with his evidence, is
attached to this report as appendix No. 2 and No. 3. The claimant asked for ten
thousand two hundred and ten pesos (P10,210) against the estate, for
professional medical services rendered to the late Gregorio Natividad during his
illness; and as it appeared to the committee that the administrators of the
estate had been duly notified of the hearing, it proceeded to hear Dr. Jose
Alvarez’s evidence in support of his claim.

“Dr. Jose Alvarez was examined under oath with reference to his claim against
the estate, and it appears that he had rendered professional services to the
late Gregorio Natividad during the latter’s illness for the time mentioned in
his bill (Exhibit A), which was adduced in evidence, and that the
executor-administrator Alfredo Natividad admits both that the creditor really
rendered such services and that they have not been paid for either wholly or in
part.

“Whereas no evidence was adduced against this claim by the executor or the
administrator of the estate, the committee hereby admits Dr. Jose Alvarez’s
claim, of ten thousand two hundred and ten pesos (P10,210) as a credit against
the estate of Gregorio Natividad, with interest at six per cent per annum from
the date of the claim,, all of which is to be paid to said creditor.

“Another claim was filed by Fr. Sinforoso Ubalde, the parish priest of
Tigaon, through Mr. Casimiro Natividad, for burial fees with reference to the
late Gregorio Natividad. Whereas this credit is rather against the heirs than
the estate, and inasmuch as the committee has re-opened its session for the sole
purpose of passing upon creditor Jose Alvarez’s claim, pursuant to the order of
the court, the committee hereby disallows the claim.

“Summary of credits claimed against estate:

“Dr. Jose Alvarez: P10,210 at 6 per cent per annum. Allowed. Father Sinforoso
Ubalde. Disallowed.

“In witness whereof we sign these presents at Tigaon, Camarines Sur, upon
this 27th day of January, 1929.— (Sgd.) FRANCISCO ALGARATE, Member. (Sgd.)
SEBASTIAN MOLL, Member.”

This additional report was received in the office of the clerk of the Court
of First Instance on February 6, 1929, and the appellants were given notice of
the fact.

On February 18, 1929, the opponents filed the following motion:

“Come now the oppositors and the administrator Casimiro Natividad in the
above entitled cause, and respectfully state:

“1. That a notice was served on the undersigned by the clerk of this court,
informing us of an additional report submitted by the actual committee on claims
and appraisals;

“2. That, up to this time, neither the administrator Casimiro Natividad, nor
your oppositors are aware of the nature of said report, they having received no
copy of same;

“3. That on or about January 24, 1929, a motion was filed by your oppositors
praying, for reasons therein contained, for the discharge of the said committee
and the appointment of a new one, said motion being up to this time pending
resolution by this court.

“4. That the said committee failed to notify either your oppositors or the
administrator Casimiro Natividad of its session or sessions for the allowance or
disallowance of any claim or claims to it submitted; and in spite thereof the
said committee appears to have allowed claims against the decedent’s estate
without due hearing and in spite of the further fact that the said administrator
asked for a continuance of the hearing requested by Dr. Jose Alvarez in his
motion of the 16th ultimo;

“That, so far as the undersigned are concerned, the said committee has not
set any date or dates for the hearing of the claim of said claimant.

“Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that all the proceedings had up to this
time by the said committee be declared null and void, the report dissallowed,
and that our petition for the discharge of the present members thereof, granted,
and new members appointed.—Manila, for Naga, Camarines Sur, P. I., February 14,
1929.—Camus & Delgado.

By (Sgd.) Macario S. Calayag, Attorneys for oppositors and administrator, 313
Masonic Temple, Manila.”

Subsequently, i. e., on November 27, 1929, the parties compounded their
difference and submitted to the court for decision the agreement transcribed on
pages 43 to 46 of the record on appeal; upon hearing thereof on November 29,
1929, the court reaffirmed its order dated July 31, 1926, admitting Gregorio
Natividad’s will to probate, presented in this case as Exhibit A of the
petition.

On January 13, 1930, Dr. Alvarez filed a motion asking the court to approve
the committee’s additional report and to order the executor to pay his P10,774
credit.

On February 12, 1930, the court entered the following ruling:

“There has been presented to the undersigned for decision, the motion of the
creditor, Dr. Jose Alvarez, asking for the approval of the report submitted by
the committee on claims and appraisals with reference to the claim against the
estate in the amount of P10,210, and that the administrator be ordered to pay
him this amount, with the opposition of Casimiro Natividad et al, who, in turn,
filed a motion praying for the removal of the present members of the committee,
and the appointment of others in their stead.

“With regard to the first motion, a careful examination of all the orders and
proceedings of the case, fails to show any sufficient reason for the opponents’
contention, particularly with reference to the notice given, for it seems
evident that opponent Casimiro Natividad had been notified of the hearing of the
claim before the committee, or at least, that he had constructive notice
thereof. In so far as to the claim of the oppositors, it should be further
observed that whatever anomalies there may have been in the allowance of this
claim, the court cannot properly take cognizance of them unless the case be
brought up to it on appeal under sections 773 et seq. of the Code of Civil
Procedure ; for which reason the motion of the creditor praying that the court
approve the report of the committee is likewise improper. There is no law nor
judicial usage requiring this court to approve or disapprove the report of the
committee, allowing or disallowing the claims filed before it. Such rulings of
the committee have the force of a judgment. Therefore, inasmuch as no appeal was
taken within the time fixed in section 775 of the Code of Civil Procedure from
the ruling of the committee allowing the creditor’s claim^ this court is unable,
in any manner, to disturb such ruling.

“With regard to the opponents’ motion for the removal of the present members
of the committee on claims, this raises merely a moot question, for, at any
rate, the past acts of these members will not be affected, and, moreover, there
are no more claims for the committee to pass upon, as, apparently, all the
periods and extensions of time provided in section 690 of the Code of Civil
Procedure have been exhausted.

“Wherefore, the opponents’ contention is overruled, and the judicial
administrator is hereby ordered to pay the amount of this claim to Dr. Jose
Alvarez as soon as he has the necessary funds. So ordered.

“Given at Naga, Camarines Sur, this twelfth day of February, 1930.

“(Sgd.) C. M. VlLLAREAL

“Judge of the Court of First Instance
“Camarines Norte and
Sur”

After a motion for the reconsideration of this ruling had been
denied, the opponents presented their appeal against this order of February 12,
1930, and now assign the following errors:

“1. The lower court erred in not declaring that the additional report filed
by the committee on claims is null and void on account of grave irregularities,
if not illegalities, committed in connection with the allowance of said
claim.

“2. The court below likewise erred in not ordering the committee on claims to
proceed to publish and post the notice required by section 687 of the Code of
Civil Procedure before passing upon the merit of the claim in question.

“3. The lower court likewise erred in not holding that the committee could
not have legally met to hear as it did hear the claim in question, without due
notice served on appellants in. accordance with the law.

“4. The lower court likewise erred in not declaring that the report was null
and void on the ground that the committee could not have legally met to hear as
it did hear the claim in question while appellants’ motion to discharge the
members of said committee was pending consideration.

“5. The lower court likewise erred in holding that the additional report has
been properly filed even though no notice thereof had been sent by the committee
to appellants’ counsel.

“6. The lower court likewise erred in holding that no proper appeal had been
taken from the additional report filed by the committee.”

The appellant prays that the order appealed from be set aside, the additional
report of the committee on claims be declared null, and the record be remanded
to the court of origin for the purpose of having the proper trial to determine
the real merits of Dr. Jose Alvarez’s claim, in accordance with section 776 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.

One of the grounds alleged by the appellant is that the committee did not
notify the administrator’s lawyer of the day when Dr. Alvarez’s claim dealt with
in the additional report would be heard, and did not apprise Casimiro Natividad,
the coadministrator, of the date and place of said hearing.

With reference to lack of notice to the administrator’s attorney, we are of
the opinion that the doctrine laid down in the case of Palad vs. Cui and
Calatrava (28 Phil., 44), cited by the appellant, is not applicable to the case
before us, which is governed rather by section 690 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. This section provides that when the court decides to authorize the
committee on claims to extend its session beyond the time formerly fixed, the
parties are to be served with notice of the date and place of the hearing
personally. The notice served on the coadministrator, Casimiro Natividad, by the
committee recites that on January 26, 1929, it was sitting in extraordinary
session at Tigaon, Camarines Sur, to hear Dr. Alvarez’s claim, to which said
coadministrator was cited to be present and hear or oppose the claim. But the
latter did not respond to the call of the committee, alleging that he was
awaiting instructions from his attorneys in Manila and from the other heirs.
Therefore, the coadministrator, Casimiro Natividad, was notified of the place
and date in which the claim of Dr. Alvarez was to be heard.

In our opinion, the decision of this case depends upon whether the
coadministrator did or did not appeal from the committee’s ruling allowing Dr.
Alvarez’s claim. In accordance with section 775 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
it appears that the administrator has not technically appealed from the
committee’s ruling; but we incline to regard the motion filed on February 18,
1929, as a substantial fulfillment of this provision, as it was filed fourteen
days after the committee had submitted its additional report, and it manifests
the appellant’s dissatisfaction with the allowance of Dr. Alvarez’s claim. And
we are constrained to place this liberal interpretation upon section 775 in
order to do justice to the parties, in view of the several irregularities we
have noticed in the record on appeal with reference to the filing and allowance
of Dr. Alvarez’s claim. This claim was not presented during the ordinary session
of the committee on claims and appraisals, but almost one year after this court
had promulgated the judgment in the case of Natividad vs. Natividad, supra;
coadministrator Casimiro Natividad was not given a reasonable time to object to
the claim of Dr. Alvarez; and this claim was allowed by the committee without
coadministrator Alfredo Natividad’s making any effort to protect the interests
of the estate against it, and without any further evidence than the sworn
statement of the claimant himself, or Dr. Alvarez.

Wherefore, let the order of February 12, 1930, be set aside, and the record
remanded to the court of origin in order to afford the parties an opportunity to
thresh out the merits of the claim presented by the alleged creditor, Dr.
Alvarez, in accordance with the provisions of section 776 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Qstrand, Romualdez, and
Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

IMPERIAL, J.:

I reserve my vote.