Garcia vs. Vasquez

The Court held that every petition for the probate of a will requires the payment of the corresponding docket fee, regardless of whether another will of the same decedent had been previously filed and probated, because each probate proceeding is distinct and the Rules of Court specifically mandate that fees for clerical services in the allowance of wills be collected at the outset without exception.

Gliceria A. del Rosario died leaving behind an estate. Consuelo Gonzales previously filed a petition for the probate of an alleged will of the decedent and paid the corresponding docket fee. Thereafter, Rev. Father Lucio V. Garcia filed a separate petition for the probate of another alleged will of the same decedent dated September 30, 1965.

• Consuelo Gonzales previously filed a petition for probate of an alleged will of Gliceria A. del Rosario and paid the required docket fees.
• Petitioner Rev. Father Lucio V. Garcia subsequently filed a separate petition for the allowance of a different will of the same decedent dated September 30, 1965.
• Petitioner refused to pay the docket fee of P940.00, asserting that no additional fees were required because the proceeding involved the settlement of only one estate and fees had already been paid in the earlier petition filed by Gonzales.
• Respondent Judge Conrado M. Vasquez issued an order on November 6, 1965 requiring petitioner to pay the docket fees within fifteen days or face dismissal of the petition.
• Petitioner complied with the order on December 2, 1965 but reserved the right to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court.
• Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for certiorari alleging that the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the payment of docket fees.

• Petitioner maintained that the payment of docket fees by Consuelo Gonzales in the earlier petition for probate of another alleged will of the same decedent exempted him from paying additional or separate docket fees.
• Petitioner argued that both petitions referred to the settlement of only one estate, the Estate of Gliceria A. del Rosario, and therefore only one set of docket fees should be required.
• Petitioner contended that the respondent Judge's order requiring payment constituted grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.

• Procedural: Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioner to pay docket fees for the probate petition.
• Substantive Issues: Whether a petitioner for probate of a will must pay docket fees notwithstanding a prior payment of such fees in connection with another will of the same decedent.

• Procedural: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Judge. The Court ruled that the respondent Judge acted in accordance with the clear tenor of Rule 141, Section 5 of the Rules of Court and therefore had no discretion to abuse in requiring the payment of docket fees.
• Substantive: The Court held that every petition for the probate of a will requires the payment of the corresponding docket fee based on the value of the property involved. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that prior payment of fees in another probate proceeding involving the same estate exempts subsequent petitioners from payment. The Court noted that a decedent may leave multiple wills, and each probate proceeding is distinct, requiring separate payment of fees for clerical services rendered in the allowance of each will.

• Payment of Docket Fees in Probate Proceedings — The Court applied the principle that docket fees are mandatory for the institution of any action or proceeding, and specifically in probate matters, Rule 141, Section 5 of the Rules of Court requires that fees for clerical services in the allowance of wills be collected at the outset based on the value of the property involved. The Court emphasized that there is no exception to this rule, and the existence of a prior probate petition involving the same estate does not excuse the payment of fees in a subsequent petition, as each will requires separate probate proceedings.

• "Petitioner should have been aware that there is no escape from the payment of the corresponding docket fee, otherwise, the Court is not called upon to act on a complaint or petition."
• "It is not farfetched or implausible that a decedent could have left various wills. Under such circumstances, there is nothing inherently objectionable in thus exacting the payment of a docket fee, every time a will is sought to be probated."
• "The specific legal provision is thus clear and unmistakable. It is the clerical service in the allowance of the will that has to be paid for. The docket fees exist for that purpose and must be collected at the outset. There is no exception according to the above legal provision."

• Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yan Tico, 24 Phil. 504 (1913) — Cited as precedent regarding the mandatory nature of docket fees and court fees.
• People v. Mapa, L-22301, August 30, 1967 — Cited in support of the principle concerning the mandatory payment of docket fees.
• Pacific Oxygen & Acetylene Co. v. Central Bank, L-21881, March 1, 1968 — Cited regarding the payment of fees as a prerequisite for judicial action.
• Dequito v. Lopez, L-27757, March 28, 1968 — Cited regarding court fees and the jurisdiction of courts.
• Padilla v. City of Pasay, L-24039, June 29, 1968 — Cited regarding the payment of docket fees in judicial proceedings.

• Rule 141, Section 5, paragraph (e) of the Rules of Court — This provision mandates that for all clerical services in the allowance of wills, fees payable out of the estate shall be collected in accordance with the value of the property involved. The Court relied on this provision to hold that docket fees must be collected at the outset of every probate proceeding without exception.