QUASHA ANCHETA PEÑA v.

LCN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

G.R No. 174873, August 26, 2008

PETITIONER: Quasha Ancheta Peña and Nolasco Law Office for its own behalf and representing the
heirs of Raymond Triviere
RESPONDENT: LCN Construction Corporation

SUMMARY: Atty. Syquia and Quasha were appointed administrators of the estate of the deceased
Raymond Triviere. They dutifuly discharged their obligations but have not been paid for services they rendered
for over a decade. They filed a Motion for Payment in the trial court which the latter granted. LCN, as the only
remaning claimant of the estate, opposed the same and on appeal to the appellate court, the former’s petition
was given partial merit in that the awards given to the heirs and administrators were deleted. The SC held that
the award in favor of the heirs is already a distribution of the estate. However, it awarded attorney’s fees to
petitioner to be sourced from the shares of the Triviere children upon final distribution of the estate.

DOCTRINE: Section 2, Rule 82 provides in clear and unequivocal terms the modes for replacing an
administrator of an estate upon the death of an administrator: Court may remove or accept resignation of
executor or administrator. Proceedings upon death, resignation, or removal. x x x. When an executor or
administrator dies, resigns, or is removed the remaining executor or administrator may administer the trust
alone, unless the court grants letters to someone to act with him. If there is no remaining executor or
administrator, administration may be granted to any suitable person.

FACTS:
1. Raymond Triviere passed away on 14 December 1987. On January 1988, proceedings for the
settlement of his intestate estate were instituted by his widow, Amy Triviere, before the Makati RTC.
Atty. Enrique Syquia and Atty. William Quasha of the Quasha Law Office, representing the widow and
children of the late Raymond Triviere, respectively were appointed administrators of the estate of the
deceased. As administrators, Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha incurred expenses for the payment of real
estate taxes, security services, and the preservation and administration of the estate, as well as
litigation expenses.
2. In February 1995, Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha filed before the RTC a Motion for Payment of their
litigation expenses. Citing their failure to submit an accounting of the assets and liabilities of the
estate under administration, the RTC denied the Motion for Payment of Atty. Syquia and Atty.
Quasha. In 1996, Atty. Quasha also passed away. Atty. Redentor Zapata (Zapata), also of the Quasha
Law Office, took over as the counsel of the Triviere children, and continued to help Atty. Syquia in the
settlement of the estate. On 6 September 2002, Atty. Syquia and Atty. Zapata filed another Motion
for Payment, for their own behalf and for their respective clients presenting certain allegations 1 the
most important of which is that there has been no payment of money from the estate for more than
10 years already. As a consequence, they moved that the amount of P1M be taken from the estate
funds to be divided among the parties (P450k as share of the children, P200k as attorney’s fees,
P150k as share of the widow, and P200k for the administrator).
3. LCN opposed the motion stating that the RTC had already resolved the issue of payment of litigation
expenses when it denied the first Motion for Payment filed by Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha for
4. The appellate court modified the Order of the RTC by deleting the awards of P450k and P150k in favor
of the children and widow of the deceased respectively. The appellate court adopted the position of
LCN that the claim of LCN was an obligation of the estate which was yet unpaid and, under Section 1,
Rule 90, barred the distribution of the residue of the estate. Petitioners, though, insist that the
awards in favor of the petitioner children and widow of the late Raymond Triviere is not a distribution
 of the residue of the estate, thus, rendering Section 1, Rule 90 inapplicable.

ISSUES:
1. WoN the CA erred in ruling that the award in favor of the heirs is already a distribution of the residue
of the estate — NO
2. WoN the CA erred in nullifying the award of attorney’s fees in favor of the co-administrators – YES

RULING: Petition PARTLY GRANTED.

RATIO:
1. Although it is within the discretion of the RTC whether or not to permit the advance distribution of
the estate, its exercise of such discretion should be qualified by the following: [1] only part of the
estate that is not affected by any pending controversy or appeal may be the subject of advance
distribution (Section 2, Rule 109); and [2] the distributees must post a bond, fixed by the court,
conditioned for the payment of outstanding obligations of the estate (second paragraph of Section 1,
Rule 90). There is no showing that the RTC, in awarding to the petitioner children and widow their
shares in the estate prior to the settlement of all its obligations, complied with these two
requirements or, at the very least, took the same into consideration. Its Order of 12 June 2003 is
completely silent on these matters. It justified its grant of the award in a single sentence which stated
that petitioner children and widow had not yet received their respective shares from the estate after
all these years. Taking into account that the claim of LCN against the estate of the late Raymond
Triviere allegedly amounted to P6,016,570.65, already in excess of the P4,738,558.63 reported total
value of the estate, the RTC should have been more prudent in approving the advance distribution of
the same.
2. Petitioners earlier invoked Dael v. Intermediate Appellate Court where the Court sustained an Order
granting partial distribution of an estate. However, Dael is not even on all fours with the case at bar.
No similar determination on sufficiency of assets or absence of any outstanding obligations of the
estate of the late Raymond Triviere was made by the RTC in this case. In fact, there is a pending claim
by LCN against the estate, and the amount thereof exceeds the value of the entire estate.
Furthermore, in Dael, the Court actually cautioned that partial distribution of the decedent's estate
pending final termination of the testate or intestate proceeding should as much as possible be
discouraged by the courts, and, except in extreme cases, such form of advances of inheritance should
not be countenanced. The reason for this rule is that courts should guard with utmost zeal and
jealousy the estate of the decedent to the end that the creditors thereof be adequately protected and
all the rightful heirs be assured of their shares in the inheritance.
3. Petitioner Quasha Law Office asserts that it is not within the purview of Section 7, Rule 85 since it is
not an appointed administrator of the estate. When Atty. Quasha passed away in 1996, Atty. Syquia
was left as the sole administrator of the estate of the late Raymond Triviere. The person of Atty.
Quasha was distinct from that of petitioner Quasha Law Office; and the appointment of Atty. Quasha
as administrator of the estate did not extend to his law office. Neither could petitioner Quasha Law
Office be deemed to have substituted Atty. Quasha as administrator upon the latter's death for the
same would be in violation of the rules on the appointment and substitution of estate administrators,
particularly, Section 2, Rule 82. Hence, when Atty. Quasha died, petitioner Quasha Law Office merely
helped in the settlement of the estate as counsel for the petitioner children of the late Raymond
Triviere.
4. The Court notes with disfavor the sudden change in the theory by petitioner Quasha Law Office.
Consistent with discussions in the preceding paragraphs, Quasha Law Office initially asserted itself as
co-administrator of the estate before the courts. The records do not belie this fact. Petitioner Quasha
Law Office later on denied it was substituted in the place of Atty. Quasha as administrator of the
estate only upon filing a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, and then again before
this Court. As a general rule, a party cannot change his theory of the case or his cause of action on
appeal. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. In the interest of justice and within the
sound discretion of the appellate court, a party may change his legal theory on appeal, only when the
factual bases thereof would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in
order to enable it to properly meet the issue raised in the new theory.
5. On the foregoing considerations, this Court finds it necessary to exercise leniency on the rule against
changing of theory on appeal, consistent with the rules of fair play and in the interest of justice.
Petitioner Quasha Law Office presented conflicting arguments with respect to whether or not it was
co-administrator of the estate. Nothing in the records, however, reveals that any one of the lawyers
of Quasha Law Office was indeed a substitute administrator for Atty. Quasha upon his death.
6. The court has jurisdiction to appoint an administrator of an estate by granting letters of
administration to a person not otherwise disqualified or incompetent to serve as such, following the
procedure laid down in Section 6, Rule 78. Corollary thereto, Section 2, Rule 82 provides in clear and
unequivocal terms the modes for replacing an administrator of an estate upon the death of an
administrator. The records of the case are wanting in evidence that Quasha Law Office or any of its
lawyers substituted Atty. Quasha as co-administrator of the estate. None of the documents attached
pertain to the issuance of letters of administration to petitioner Quasha Law Office or any of its
lawyers at any time after the demise of Atty. Quasha in 1996. This Court is thus inclined to give
credence to petitioner's contention that while it rendered legal services for the settlement of the
estate of Raymond Triviere since the time of Atty. Quasha's death in 1996, it did not serve as co-
administrator thereof, granting that it was never even issued letters of administration. However,
while petitioner Quasha Law Office, serving as counsel of the Triviere children from the time of death
of Atty. Quasha in 1996, is entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses of P100,000.00 as prayed
for in the Motion for Payment dated 3 September 2002, and as awarded by the RTC in its 12 June
2003 Order, the same may be collected from the shares of the Triviere children, upon final
distribution of the estate, in consideration of the fact that the Quasha Law Office, indeed, served as
counsel (not anymore as co-administrator), representing and performing legal services for the Triviere
children in the settlement of the estate of their deceased father.