Case Digest: G.R. No. L-12729, Arsenio R. Reyes vs. Marcial de la Cruz, et al.

Facts:

● Arsenio R. Reyes (plaintiff-appellant) filed an appeal against the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 20670.
● The case involves heirs Marcial, Eugenio, Lucia, and Alfonso de la Cruz, who hired
Arsenio R. Reyes as their attorney in a special proceeding to secure their rightful shares
in the estate of the deceased Anselmo S. Hilario.
● A contract of services was signed, promising Reyes 5% of the amount adjudicated to
each heir as payment for his legal representation.
● The contract specified that the payment would not be made in cash but based on the
properties' value adjudicated to the heirs.
● Reyes helped expedite the partition process and the heirs received their shares
accordingly.
● Reyes then sued the heirs for his fees, which he claimed should be 5% of the market
value of the properties plus damages and attorney's fees.

Issues:

● Whether the contract for legal services referred to the assessed value or the market
value of the properties adjudicated to the heirs.
● Whether Reyes is entitled to additional damages and attorney's fees.

Rulings:

● The contract refers to the assessed value, not the market value, of the properties.

● The Court agreed with the trial court's interpretation that the 5% fee referred to the
assessed value. This was because assessed value was the only known value at the time
of the contract.
● The market value of properties is difficult to determine and can fluctuate over time.
● The contract's lack of mention of "market value" and the lawyer's involvement in drafting
the contract supported this interpretation.
● The parties agreed on the assessed value as it appeared in the inventory, which was
used for partition.
● Reyes is not entitled to additional damages and attorney's fees.

● The lower court denied Reyes' claim for damages and attorney's fees.
● The Court agreed, noting that Reyes' claim for 5% of the market value was exorbitant
and unconscionable.
● Reyes' claim was much higher than the attorney who represented the estate
administrator from the beginning.
● Reyes had already received fees from Marcial de la Cruz's estate.
 ● The Court found that the total compensation Reyes received was sufficient for his legal
services.

Conclusion:

● The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the contract referred to the
assessed value of the properties, not the market value. Additionally, Reyes was not
entitled to additional damages and attorney's fees as his claim was deemed excessive.
The decision of the lower court was upheld with costs.