EXPENSES AND FEES ALLOWED AN ADMINISTRATOR

For necessary expenses in the case, management, and settlement of the estate,
and for his services

Four pesos (P4.00) per day for the time actually and necessarily
employed, OR
Commission upon the value of so much of the estate as comes into his
possession and is finally disposed of by him in the payment of debts,
expenses, legacies, or distributive shares, or by delivery to heirs or devisees
First P5,000 of value of estate
Over P5,000 but not over P30,000
Over P30,000 but not over P100,000
Over P100,000

2%
1%
0.5%
0.25%

But in any special case, 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, a greater sum
may be allowed.
If objection to the fees allowed be taken, the allowance may be re-examined
on appeal.

If there are two or more executors or administrators, the compensation shall be

apportioned among them by the court according to the services actually rendered
by them respectively.
When the executor or administrator is an attorney, he shall not charge against
the estate any professional fees for legal services rendered by him.
Source: Rule 85, Section 7 of the Rules of Court

Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. IAC

13 February 1989 / G.R. No. 72424
The administrator filed a motion for allowances and payment of administrators
commission. The parties representing the deceased administrator were contesting
the IACs reduction of the administrators commission from P500,000.00 (as
adjudged by the lower courts) to a mere P4,312.50.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ADMINISTRATOR and upheld the grant of
P500,000.00 commission.

It cited the special case provision in Rule 85, Section 7 and said that [a]
wide latitude, leeway or discretion is therefore given to the trial court to grant
a greater sum. And the determination of whether the administration and
liquidation of an estate have been attended with greater difficulty and have
required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or
administrator rests on the sound discretion of the court which took
cognizance of the estate.

While the inventory was only P890,865.25 as of an earlier date, the

value of the estate INCREASED not only by the efforts to take good care
thereof and by the efforts to locate other properties belonging to the estate,
such that when the administrator submitted the inventory of the
properties after five years, the total appraisal appeared to be over
P10 million.

Considering the size of the estate and extent of the care given by the
administrator, the amount asked for is not unreasonable and should therefore
be allowed.

OLD CASES
Testate Estate of Amadeo Matute Olave v. Jose S. Matute
(G.R. No. L-27832, 28 May 1970)
o The Supreme Court reversed the probate courts order which denied
the counsel for the estate the right to retain documents without his
claim for fees being first satisfied.
o Note: The lawyer in this case was not an administrator, but from time
to time, he was in possession of titles belonging to the estate. The
lawyers legal services included the study, preparation, drafting, due
execution and probate of the testament of the deceased.
o Furthermore: The Court only made reference to the provision on
Attorneys Liens (Rule 138, Section 7), not to provisions on the
administrators compensation.

Testate Estate of Amadeo Matute Olave v. Julian Villanueva Matute

(G.R. No. L-21287, 31 Aug 1966)

In this case, the retention of documents belonging to the estate was

DENIED because the counsel served not the estate but the
administrator in his individual capacity.