Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 324 views

    G.R. No. L-29184

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    The petitioner, a practicing attorney, entered into an agreement with Rosa del Rosario to represent her in probating the holographic will of Maxima C. Reselva, with a contingent fee of 35% of any property received. The will was disallowed by the court. The petitioner argued he had a right under Article 1052 of the Civil Code to accept the devise in Rosa's name to protect his contingent fee. However, the Court ruled that Article 1052 did not apply because the petitioner was not a creditor of Rosa, as payment of fees was contingent on successful probate, and Rosa was not a legal heir after probate was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner was not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. L-29184

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    324 views2 pages
    The petitioner, a practicing attorney, entered into an agreement with Rosa del Rosario to represent her in probating the holographic will of Maxima C. Reselva, with a contingent fee of 35% of any property received. The will was disallowed by the court. The petitioner argued he had a right under Article 1052 of the Civil Code to accept the devise in Rosa's name to protect his contingent fee. However, the Court ruled that Article 1052 did not apply because the petitioner was not a creditor of Rosa, as payment of fees was contingent on successful probate, and Rosa was not a legal heir after probate was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner was not

    Original Description:

    succession digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, a practicing attorney, entered into an agreement with Rosa del Rosario to represent her in probating the holographic will of Maxima C. Reselva, with a contingent fee of 35% of any property received. The will was disallowed by the court. The petitioner argued he had a right under Article 1052 of the Civil Code to accept the devise in Rosa's name to protect his contingent fee. However, the Court ruled that Article 1052 did not apply because the petitioner was not a creditor of Rosa, as payment of fees was contingent on successful probate, and Rosa was not a legal heir after probate was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner was not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    324 views2 pages

    G.R. No. L-29184

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    The petitioner, a practicing attorney, entered into an agreement with Rosa del Rosario to represent her in probating the holographic will of Maxima C. Reselva, with a contingent fee of 35% of any property received. The will was disallowed by the court. The petitioner argued he had a right under Article 1052 of the Civil Code to accept the devise in Rosa's name to protect his contingent fee. However, the Court ruled that Article 1052 did not apply because the petitioner was not a creditor of Rosa, as payment of fees was contingent on successful probate, and Rosa was not a legal heir after probate was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner was not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    BENEDICTO LEVISTE

    vs.
    THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE LUIS B. REYES, COURT
    OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ROSA DEL ROSARIO, RITA
    BANU, CARMEN DE GUZMAN-MARQUEZ, JESUS R. DE
    GUZMAN, RAMON R. DE GUZMAN, JACINTO R. DE GUZMAN
    and ANTONIO R. DE GUZMAN
    G.R. No. L-29184. January 30, 1989
    GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.

    Facts:
    The petitioner, a practicing attorney, entered into a written
    agreement with the private respondent Rosa del Rosario to appear as
    her counsel in a petition for probate of the holographic will of the late
    Maxima C. Reselva. Under the will, a piece of real property at Sales
    Street, Quiapo, Manila, was bequeathed to Del Rosario. It was
    agreed that petitioner's contigent fee would be thirty-five per cent
    (35%) of the property that Rosa may receive upon the probate of the
    will.

    Nonetheless, on August 28, 1967, the court disallowed the will,


    holding that the legal requirements for its validity were not satisfied
    as only two witnesses testified that the will and the testatrix's
    signature were in the handwriting of Maxima Reselva. The petitioner
    then filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for mandamus but was
    dismissed for being insufficient in form and substance.

    Upon the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner


    appealed by certiorari to this Court, assigning the error that by virtue
    of petitioner’s contract of services with Del Rosario, he is a creditor of
    the latter, and that under Article 1052 of the Civil Code which
    provides:
    ART. 1052. If the heir repudiates the inheritance to the
    prejudice of his own creditors, the latter may petition the
    court to authorize them to accept it in the name of the
    heir.
    The acceptance shall benefit the creditors only to an
    extent sufficient to cover the amount of their credits. The
    excess, should there be any, shall in no case pertain to
    the renouncer, but shall be adjudicated to the persons to
    whom, in accordance with the rules established in this
    Code, it may belong.
    he has a right to accept for his client Del Rosario to the extent of
    35% thereof the devise in her favor (which she in effect repudiated)
    to protect his contigent attorney's fees.

    Issue:
    Whether or not Article 1052 of the Civil Code is applicable in
    the case at bar.

    Ruling:
    No, Article 1052 of the Civil Code does not apply to this case.
    That legal provision protects the creditor of a repudiating heir.
    Petitioner is not a creditor of Rosa del Rosario. The payment of his
    fees is contingent and dependent upon the successful probate of the
    holographic will. Since the petition for probate was dismissed by the
    lower court, the contingency did not occur. Attorney Leviste is not
    entitled to his fee.

    Furthermore, Article 1052 presupposes that the obligor is an


    heir. Rosa del Rosario is not a legal heir of the late Maxima C.
    Reselva. Upon the dismissal of her petition for probate of the
    decedent's will, she lost her right to inherit any part of the latter's
    estate. There is nothing for the petitioner to accept in her name.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy