Iluminada De Gala-Sison, As Administratrix of reconsideration praying for a chance for her to show that

Intestate Estate of the late Generoso de Gala vs
Hon. Manolo Maddela and Socorro Manalo (1975)
J. Antonio
Doctrine: The amount of administrator/trix’s fee in
special cases under the Rules is a matter largely in the
discretion of the probate court, which will not be
disturbed on appeal, except for an abuse of discretion.
the disbursements itemized in her verified accounting are
supported by receipts and that her payments of atty’s
fees were for her benefit as an heir.
Before action could be taken on her motion for new trial,
petitioner interposed the present petition for Certiorari
before this Court, alleging GADALEJ against resp.
Judge.
II. PROCEDURE SUMMARY

I. FACTS: Action By Venue Decision

Motion for Socorro CFI- Granted

Petitioner Iluminada is the sole surviving child of the
decedent and the administratrix of his estate.
Aug. 29, 1952 – CFI Quezon directed her to:
a) include in her inventory of properties certain pieces of
jewelry;
b) deposit cash in her possession amounting to
P40,998.86 with a reputable banking institution.
This was affirmed on appeal with the CA. However, on a
petition for certiorari, the SC found that the amount of
P1,698.41 was spent by administratrix as expense and
approved by the court as such. The Court also made a
pronouncement that since the balance of P40,998 may
no longer exist by virtue of the fact that the
administratrix must have already paid to the heirs their
respective allowances and shares in the inheritance.
October 7, 1963 – Resp. Socorro moved for execution
of the SC decision. Petitioner then filed an Amended
Inventory in compliance with the order. However, she
did not comply with the deposit. Instead, she
manifested that there is no need for deposit to be
made in a banking institution because then the
accountable fund was still a sizable one. Since then,
the following deductions have been made:
a) expenses approved by court – P1,698.41
b) advances and allowances to petitioner as heir –
P22,000
c) other heirs – P21,815.88
d) surviving widow – P19,151.39
e) expenses of litigation
f) compensation of petitioner as administratrix
Respondent Judge however reiterated its order for
petitioner to make the deposit.
Petitioner filed a motion for new trial and/or
Execution Manalo Quezon
Motion for New Petitioner CFI- pending
Trial and/or Iluminada Quezon
Reconsideration
Petition for Petitioner SC Dismissed
Certiorari Iluminada
III. ISSUE:
W/N petitioner can be compelled to deposit in a bank
what she no longer has, considering that she is
entitled to the deductions which she made from the
original amount, for (a) as sole surviving child of
decedent, she is entitled to advances and allowances
from the inheritance, and (b) as administratrix, she is
to be reimbursed for her expenditures and to deduct
her fees as such administratrix – Yes, but this case is
premature.
IV. RATIONALE:
As to the correctness of the disbursements made by the
administratrix, including her advances and allowances
from the inheritance and expenditures and compensation
as administratrix, the probate court should first pass upon
such matter.
Pursuant to Section 7 of Rule 85 of the Rules, a judicial
administrator is entitled, by way of compensation as
such, to either (a) P4.00 per day "for the time actually
and necessarily employed" by him as such administrator,
or (b) a "commission upon the value of so much of the
estate as comes into his possession and was finally
disposed of by him" according to the schedule therein
provided.
The administrator may be allowed a greater or additional
sum "where the estate is large, and the settlement has
been attended with great difficulty, and has required a
high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or
administrator".
It must be noted that petitioner is seeking as her
compensation as administratrix an amount greater than
that ordinarily allowed under the rules on the ground
that the estate is large, its settlement "having been
attended with great difficulty (since 1947 or almost 17
years ago) and required a high degree of capacity". In
order to entitle the executor or administrator to
additional compensation, the estate must be large, the
settlement extraordinarily difficult, and a high degree of
capacity demonstrated by him. The amount of his fee
in special cases under the Rules is a matter largely
in the discretion of the probate court, which will not
be disturbed on appeal, except for an abuse of
discretion.
Whether or not the probate court abused its discretion
would depend on the attendant facts. Such evidence
could be presented before the court a quo. Similarly,
any review of the order of the probate court denying
petitioner's motions on the ground that the different
disbursements contained in her accounts "are not only
unsupported by receipts but likewise not properly and
legally chargeable against the estate of the deceased
..." would involve a consideration of the supporting
evidence which is the subject of the motion for new trial
of the petitioner.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, the present petition
for certiorari is indeed premature.
V. DISPOSITIVE:
PETITION DISMISSED