WEE

Case No. 123

Art. 1052 - Right of Creditors to accept a repudiated inheritance
Benedicto Leviste v. CA ∣ G.R. No. 29184, 30 January 1989 [169 SCRA 580]
CASE NOT FOUND IN THE BOOK

Nature of the Case: This is a petition for certiorari seeking the dismissal of the orders of the CA. DENIED.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner, a practicing attorney, entered into a written agreement with the private respondent Rosa del
Rosario to appear as her counsel for the probate of the holographic will of the late Maxima C. Reselva.
Under the will, a piece of real property was bequeathed to Del Rosario. It was agreed that petitioner’s
contingent fee would be 35% of the property that Rosa may receive upon the probate of the will.

2. Thereafter, Leviste was informed that Del Rosario was terminating his services due to "conflicting interest."
This consisted in petitioner’s moral obligation to protect the interest of his brother-in-law, Gaudencio M. Llanes, whom Del Rosario and
the other parties in the probate proceeding intended to eject as lessee of the subject property.

3. Petitioner then filed a "Motion to Intervene to Protect His Rights to Fees for Professional Services" which
was denied by the trial court. Although the order denying his motion to intervene had become final,
petitioner continued to receive copies of the court’s orders, as well as the pleadings of the other parties in
the case. He also continued to file pleadings.

4. Del Rosario and Rita Banu, the special administratrix-legatee, filed a "Motion To Withdraw Petition for
Probate" alleging that Del Rosario waived her rights to the devise in her favor and agreed that the De Guzman
brothers and sisters who opposed her petition for probate, shall inherit all the properties left by the decedent.
Trial court denied the motion for being contrary to public policy. Nonetheless, the court disallowed the will,
holding that the legal requirements for its validity were not satisfied as only two witnesses testified that the
will and the testatrix’s signature were in the handwriting of Reselva.

5. The petitioner filed an appeal for the said decision. He claims that he had a direct and material interest in
the decision sought to be reviewed. He also asked that he be substituted as party-petitioner, in lieu of his
former client. However, the trial judge dismissed the appeal and denied petitioner’s motion for
substitution. Petitioner then filed in the CA a petition for mandamus praying that the trial court be ordered
to give due course to his appeal and to grant his motion for substitution. CA dismissed the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is a creditor of the repudiating heir.

RULING: NO. Article 1052 of the Civil Code does not apply to this case. That legal provision protects the
creditor of a repudiating heir. Petitioner is not a creditor of Del Rosario. The payment of his fees is contingent
and dependent upon the successful probate of the holographic will. Since the petition for probate was
dismissed by the lower court, the contingency did not occur. Atty. Leviste is not entitled to his fee.

Furthermore, Article 1052 presupposes that the obligor is an heir. Del Rosario is not a legal heir of the late
Reselva. Upon the dismissal of her petition for probate of the decedent’s will, she lost her right to inherit
any part of the latter’s estate. There is nothing for the petitioner to accept in her name.

Petitioner was not a party to the probate proceeding in the lower court. He had no direct interest in the probate of
the will. His only interest in the estate is an indirect interest as former counsel for a prospective heir. In Paras v.
Narciso, We had occasion to rule that one who is only indirectly interested in a will may not interfere in its probate.