ESTATE OF THE DECEASED MODESTO JINON. FELIX BENEDICTO, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT, VS. PERFECTO ESPINO, ADMINISTRATOR AND APPELLEE.

Benedicto versus Espino

The Case

This is the estate case of Benedicto versus Espino, decided in April 1939. Felix Benedicto, an oppositor and appellant, challenged two orders of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo that approved the administrator's accounts for the estates of the deceased Modesto Jinon and the deceased Andrea Espino, and that fixed his attorney's fees at 1,000 pesos payable by the spouses Leon Jinon and Victoria Jiao rather than by the estates. The case matters because it draws a clean line between a claim against an estate and a claim against the persons who personally hired the lawyer: a lawyer who never contracted with the administrator, and who served only the usufructuaries of the estate, has no cause of action against the estate itself.

Procedural History

In the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, the administrator, Perfecto Espino, presented an account covering the period from April 14, 1934 to June 1, 1936. On September 12, 1936, the court approved that account, finding it supported and justified by the vouchers attached to it, and at the same time allowed the appellant to amend his motion for attorney's fees dated September 7, 1936. On September 26, 1936, the court recorded that the spouses Leon Jinon and Victoria Jiao and the appellant had agreed that his professional fees as their attorney in the estates would be 1,000 pesos, and that his right of retention up to that amount should be noted on any judgments rendered in favor of the spouses. The appellant moved for reconsideration on September 15, 1936, and that motion was denied. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the approval of the accounts, the denial of his motion for reconsideration, the failure to order the administrator to recover 1,885 pesos and 25 centavos allegedly illegally paid to the spouses for their maintenance and for the maintenance and education of their children, and the failure to award him one third of that amount, or 628 pesos and 41 centavos, as part payment for his professional services under a contract he had executed with the spouses on October 6, 1934.

Facts

Two estates were under administration: that of the deceased Modesto Jinon and that of the deceased Andrea Espino. The spouses Leon Jinon and Victoria Jiao held only usufructuary rights in these estates, which were ultimately to be adjudicated to their children Rebeca, Maria, Godofredo, and Josefa Jinon.

The appellant, Felix Benedicto, served as attorney for the spouses Leon Jinon and Victoria Jiao in the administration proceedings. He had a contract with those spouses, dated October 6, 1934, concerning his professional services, but he never entered into any contract regarding his fees with the administrator of the two estates, either before or during the time he represented the spouses. The parties admitted this fact, and they likewise admitted that the spouses were mere usufructuaries.

The administrator's account for the period from April 1934 to June 1936 was supported by vouchers. The trial court approved it and later recorded the agreement fixing the appellant's fees at 1,000 pesos, payable by the spouses, with a right of retention noted on any judgments in their favor. No determination had yet been made of the portions or properties to be finally adjudicated to the children, nor of the amount and value of the spouses' usufructuary rights.

Issues

• Whether or not the lower court erred in approving the administrator's annual accounts dated August 11, 1936.
• Whether or not the lower court erred in denying the appellant's motion for reconsideration dated September 15, 1936.
• Whether or not the lower court erred in not ordering the administrator to recover from the spouses Leon Jinon and Victoria Jiao the total amount of 1,885 pesos and 25 centavos allegedly illegally paid to them for their maintenance and for the maintenance and education of their children.
• Whether or not the lower court erred in not ordering the administrator to pay the appellant one third of that amount, or 628 pesos and 41 centavos, as part payment for his professional services under his contract with the spouses dated October 6, 1934.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the admitted facts and on the settled rule that a personal obligation binds only the persons who contracted it. The governing principle, as the Court states it, is that the appellant's claim lies against the usufructuaries who bound themselves personally to him, and in no case against the estates.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the approval of the accounts was proper. When the lower court approved the administrator's account, it had before it the vouchers supporting and justifying that account, and the appellant points to no defect in them.

On the second issue, the denial of the motion for reconsideration stood, because the grounds raised in that motion were the same claims the Court now found to be without merit.

On the third issue, the Court refused to order the administrator to recover the 1,885 pesos and 25 centavos from the spouses. The appellant had no standing to demand that recovery, and his remedy, if any, lay elsewhere.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the appellant had no action against the estates for his fees. The Court put the rule plainly:

For all purposes, he has no action against the said two estates. If any he has or may have, that action would be against the usufructuaries, the spouses Leon Jinon and Victoria Jiao, who bound themselves personally to the appellant, but in no case against the estates.

The Court stressed that the appellant never contracted with the administrator, and that the spouses were only usufructuaries of the estates to be adjudicated to their children. It also noted that no determination had yet been made of the portions to be adjudicated to the children or of the value of the usufructuary rights, so the estates could not be charged. Finally, the Court found that the order of September 26, 1936 sufficiently safeguarded the appellant: his 1,000 pesos in fees were to be paid in due time by the spouses, not by the estates, and his right of retention up to that sum was formally recognized against whatever the spouses might receive, the amount of which could be known only after all the obligations of the two estates had been paid.

Doctrine

A lawyer who renders services in an estate proceeding under a contract with the estate's usufructuaries, and who never contracts with the administrator, has no cause of action for his fees against the estate. His claim lies against the usufructuaries, who bound themselves personally to him. An estate is liable only on obligations lawfully contracted by or on its behalf, supported by the administrator's accounts and vouchers. A usufructuary's personal undertaking does not become a charge on the naked property or on the residue destined for the remaindermen. And where the probate court fixes the fees and recognizes a right of retention on the usufructuaries' share, the lawyer's rights are sufficiently safeguarded without recourse against the estate.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed orders, with costs against the appellant, Felix Benedicto.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the lawyer's action lies against the usufructuaries who bound themselves personally, but in no case against the estates. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a claim against an estate and a personal claim against the heirs or usufructuaries, and to test who may be charged for attorney's fees in probate proceedings.