Nasser v. Cuevas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the settlement of the estate of the late Amadeo Matute Molave, a supplemental compromise agreement and project of partition was executed among the heirs and interested parties. This agreement was approved by the Probate Court. Procedural History: The agreement stipulated the payment of attorney's fees to respondent Atty. Paterno Canlas in the amount of P600,000.00, payable in property and cash. It also established a charging lien on all properties of the estate to secure this payment, with the proviso that the lien on a party's share would be extinguished upon full payment of their corresponding liability. The Court directed the heirs and transferees to pay their respective shares of the attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioners assailed the order of execution, arguing that execution was improper due to the absence of a written agreement on the precise terms of payment. They contended that the clause regarding the extinguishment of the lien upon full payment implied payment by installment and that such an agreement was orally made. The Court issued a temporary restraining order.
Issue(s)
Whether the clause "upon full-payment of the corresponding liability of a party the lien on his/her share is extinguished" connotes payment of attorney's fees in installments. Whether there was an oral agreement for installment payments of attorney's fees. Whether the order of execution and writ of execution were validly issued.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The restraining order against the enforcement of the challenged order of execution and writ of execution is LIFTED AND DISSOLVED. The order and writ are held to have been validly and lawfully issued. Alias execution may issue to the extent that the judgment credit of Atty. Paterno R. Canlas remains unsatisfied, with the proviso that the sums still due him shall bear interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from September 2, 1974 until fully paid. Petitioners are charged treble costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the interpretation of the charging lien clause: The clause "upon full-payment of the corresponding liability of a party the lien on his/her share is extinguished" does not, by implication, grant the obligors the option to pay in installments or bind the obligee to accept payment by parts. The paragraph merely establishes a charging lien to secure the attorney's fees. The proviso simply signifies that once an obligor pays their share, the lien on their specific portion is removed, which is a logical consequence of payment. It does not create an obligation for the creditor to accept partial payments. On the alleged oral agreement for installment payments: The Court found no proof worthy of the name to substantiate the supposed oral agreement made before Mr. Justice Barredo. The self-serving affidavits of the heirs, considered in light of all circumstances, did not qualify as sufficient proof. The absence of any mention of installment payments in the compromise agreement or the court order approving it, despite the parties being assisted by counsel and the agreement being deliberated for eight months, further weakened this claim. On the validity of the execution order: The Court held that the order of execution and the writ of execution were validly and lawfully issued. The petitioners' attempt to construe the plain language of the written agreement in a manner not warranted by its terms was deemed semantic sophistry. The Court noted that the heirs had delayed payment for sixteen years without paying a single centavo, and their stratagem to delay fulfillment of their obligation was exposed. Therefore, alias execution was permitted to satisfy the outstanding judgment credit, with legal interest.
Main Doctrine
A charging lien established on estate properties to secure attorney's fees does not, by implication, grant the obligors the option to pay in installments or bind the obligee to accept partial payments, absent an express stipulation to that effect.