[SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY.

TANTUICO] 1

68. QUIRINO Special Administrator, Estate of Natividad Raquiza, and Estate
Carmen Castellvi vs. HON. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE, and GOINGCO, Administrator,
Estate of Alfonso Castellvi
G.R. No. L-58797 | 1988-04-25 PADILLA
Digest by: RAMOS
TOPIC: Procedure in Resolution of Claims
DOCTRINE:
1) Advances of the inheritance to the heirs, irregular.
The Court cannot sanction the procedure of allowing this disbursement as an
advance of the inheritance of the heirs of the decedent because this would, in the
first place, be an irregular procedure, and, in the second place, it gratuitously
assumes that the estate of the deceased will end up with a net residue in favor of
the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi.
2) Claim of creditor against an heir, not proper.
David alleged that he was a creditor of Carmen (Administrator of Don Alfonso) with
a lien on Carmen’s fees as administratrix and on her share in the estate as one of
the heirs. The claims cannot be entertained in this settlement proceedings of the
estate of Don Alfonso, but in the settlement proceedings of the estate of Carmen.
SUMMARY:
 Don Alfonso died; one of his heirs is his brother, Don Juan who became
administrator of his estate.
 Don Juan died; his wife Carmen became the administrator of the estate of Don
Alfonso.
 Carmen died.
 David, creditor of Carmen, wants a recover payment of Carmen’s credit from
(a) Carmen’s fees as administrator of Don Alfonso’ estate and (b) Carmen’s
inheritance from Don Juan.
 SC: David’s claim denied. See Ruling 2 above.
FACTS:
Don Alfonso’s Estate:
 Don Alfonso died; last will:
o 2/3 to adopted daughter Natividad.
o 1/3 of his estate to his brother, Don Juan, who was made administrator.
 Notice to creditors was duly published in the newspaper.
Don Juan’s Estate:
 Don Juan was married to Carmen.
 In his will, Don Juan gave the usufruct of his entire estate (including the 1/3
share in the estate of Don Alfonso) to Carmen.
o Carmen succeeded as Administratrix of the estate of Don Alfonso.
 Don Alfonso's will was admitted to probate.
 Carmen filed a petition to probate the will of her late husband, Don Juan.
Carmen’s Estate:
 Upon Carmen's death, a petition for intestacy of Carmen was filed by her
daughters.
o Petition dismissed for lack of interest on the part of the petitioners.
 Quirino, a creditor, petitioned the court to set the case for hearing, stating his
interest and willingness to advance the publication expenses.
o The court appointed Quirino as Special Administrator.
 Claims of Jesus T. David: he was a creditor of Carmen M. Castellvi with a lien
on her fees as administratrix of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi and on her
share in the estate as one of the heirs.
Natividad’s Estate:
 Natividad (daughter of Don Alfonso) died testate, leaving as estate her
inherited 2/3 share in the estate of Don Alfonso.
o Quirino was appointed Special Administrator.
going back to Don Alfonso’s Estate:
 Within 6 months following the last publication of notice to creditors, the
following claims were received:
o Dismissed by the court only after 40 years for failure to prosecute:
 Melquiades C. Valencia - 14.00
 Irene Cordero - 1,409.22
 Alejandro Lopez - P1,190.10
o Approved for payment and paid: Ma. Nieves Toledo - 2,605.09, 4,500.00
o Record fails to disclose the disposition: creditor Juan Castellvi - 8,404.00,
343.12, 940.01
o T o t a l - P19,405.54
Quirino, Special Administrator of Estate of Natividad contends:
 after having disposed of the only valid claim against the estate of Don Alfonso
Castellvi, the probate court should have proceeded with the settlement and
distribution of the estate, as the extent and value of his estate had already
been determined.
 however, the probate court did not do this but, instead, entertained
controversial and purely money claims, not against the estate but against the
instituted heirs, of the estate, which have dissipated the value of the estate.
 claims for services allegedly rendered to the Carmen should have been charged
to her 12% fees as Administratrix, and not directly against the estate.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 the probate court should have refrained (but did not) from issuing orders for
the release and disbursement of funds from their respective undistributed
shares in the estate of Don Alfonso, and that the claimants could reiterate their
respective claims before the appropriate probate courts.
MAIN ISSUE:
1) Whether the claim of a creditor (David) against an administrator (Carmen) of an
estate (of Don Alfonso) with a lien on the administratrix fees can be
entertained in the settlement proceedings of the estate (of Don Alfonso). NO.
The claims must be entertained in the settlement proceedings of the estate of
Carmen.
Claim of creditor against an heir, not proper.
David alleged that he was a creditor of Carmen (Administrator of Don Alfonso) with
a lien on Carmen’s fees as administratrix. The claims cannot be entertained in this
settlement proceedings of the estate of Don Alfonso, but in the settlement
proceedings of the estate of Carmen
2) Whether the attorney’s fees of the lawyers of the heirs (Natividad and Don
Juan) can be entertained against their shares in the estate as the heirs of Don
Alfonso. NO.
Advances of the inheritance to the heirs, irregular.
The Court cannot sanction the procedure of allowing this disbursement as an
advance of the inheritance of the heirs of the decedent because this would, in the
first place, be an irregular procedure, and, in the second place, it gratuitously
assumes that the estate of the deceased will end up with a net residue.
Attorneys Juan F. Gomez and Antonio V. Raquiza are hereby ordered to return to
the estate of Don Alfonso, the respective amounts of P30,000.00 and P250,000.00
they have received from said estate.
The Court hereby orders the final settlement, termination and closure of this unduly
delayed estate proceedings, Sp. Proc. No. 6824, "Testate Estate of the late Don
Alfonso de Castellvi" where the shares of Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza and Juan
Castellvi have only to be finally determined, quantified and distributed to said
instituted heirs or their respective estates.
OTHER ISSUES
[SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY. TANTUICO] 2
PROBATE COURT ISSUED ORDERS RE:
1) Attorney's Fees of Cuadrajento Mendoza
2) Claims of Exequiel Floro
3) Claims of Attorneey’s Fees of Juan F. Gomez
4) Attorney's Fees Of Antonio V. Raquiza
5) Claims of Jesus T. David
RULING OF SUPREME COURT
Attorney's Fees of Cuadrajento Mendoza
 The propriety of the award is now beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to alter,
the same having been approved by the Probate Court.
 The attorney's fees was fixed with the conformity of the heirs of Don Alfonso
Castellvi.
 Periodic payments had also been made thereon, without objection from the
heirs of Don Alfonso Castellvi.
Claims of Exequiel Floro:
 These claims have also been settled under circumstances similar to those
relating to claim number one.
Claims of Attorneey’s Fees of Juan F. Gomez:
 This claim is expressly recognized as chargeable to the heirs of Don Juan
Castellvi; thus not properly cognizable settlement of the estate of Don Alfonso
Castellvi.
 The amount of P30,000.00 erroneously disbursed to Atty. Gomez as
representation and transportation expenses in connection with services
rendered to the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi should be returned to the estate of
Don Alfonso Castellvi.
 The Court cannot sanction the procedure of allowing this disbursement as an
advance of the inheritance of the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi, which entails
eventually deducting the amount from the final share of the heirs of Don Juan
Castellvi in the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, because this would, in the first
place, be an irregular procedure, and, in the second place, it gratuitously
assumes that the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi will end up with a net residue
in favor of the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi.
Attorney's Fees of Antonio V. Raquiza:
 This claim should be settled in the estate of Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza as it is
admittedly for services rendered to her in transactions involving her share in
the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 [SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY. TANTUICO] 3

 Thus, the claim cannot properly be recognized and settled in the estate of Don
Alfonso and the P250,000.00 earlier but erroneously released should also be
returned to the Testate Estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi.

Petitioner Quirino claims that the deceased Natividad retains her entitlement to the
two-thirds (2/3) of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi by virtue of her institution as
heiress, by will, to said inheritance.

The Raquizas contend that she (Natividad) had assigned and conveyed all her share,
rights and interest in the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, to her children by Antonio
V. Raquiza. This is in turn contested by Quirino's assertion that Natividad had
disinherited her husband and all her said children under a holographic will duly
probated.

NEITHER this Court, at this stage, nor the respondent probate court that should
adjudicate these conflicting postures which, in the final analysis, involve the
ultimate question of whether Natividad (or her estate) remains the owner of what
originally was bequeathed to her by Don Alfonso Castellvi in his will.

A resolution of this question demands a full ventilation of respective positions

requiring evidence, not merely allegations in pleadings, and this function pertains to
a court, not of limited jurisdiction as the respondent probate court, but one with
general jurisdiction.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019