On May 5, 1955,  the special administrator filed a  petition in court for  authority to pay  the accounting firm of Sycip, Gorres, Velayo & Co. the sum of P3,650,  for services rendered in taking  inventory of assets in  1950, tax  consultations  in 1950  to 1954,  and  preparation of  income tax returns for 1953  and 1954.  The court below  denied this motion, on the ground that the  services covered by the fees  of the  accounting firm  were rendered  to the former  special administrator Philippine Trust Company. Upon being notified of the denial of the special  administrator's petition to pay it, the accounting firm appeared in court and  asked for the reconsideration of the order of denial.  Opposition to this  motion for reconsideration was filed by heirs Teresa, Carmen, Consuelo, Manuel, Elena and  Alfredo,  all surnamed  Palanca y  Cuartero, on the following grounds: as to  the  fees  for services in the taking of the inventory in 1950, Mr. Ozaeta, who asked for said services, was not yet the special  administrator when said services were rendered;  the tax consultations from 1950 to 1954 cover years in which Mr.  Ozaeta was not yet the special administrator, and  as  the same  was rendered during the incumbency of the Philippine Trust, the fees should be paid for by  Mr. Ozaeta himself.  After various arguments, the court refused  to  grant  the  re- consideration  of  its original order  denying the  petition, and  so  appeal therefrom  was  taken to this Court.

Since the pendency of the case in court, the oppositors-appellees have presented a withdrawal of their opposition, on  the ground that  they have already assigned  their rights, titles  and participations  in the said estate to the eight children of Rosa  Gonzales  Vda. de Palanca, and no longer have any  interest in the  estate,  nor  do they have any  personality to further intervene in the proceedings. A similar motion has also  been filed  by Sebastian  Palanca, who states that he has transferred his  share to the inheritance to Carlos Palanca, Jr.  For their part. Rosa Gonzales  Vda. de Palanca and  her  eight children have  filed a statement expressing conformity to the payment of the fees.

The withdrawal  of the  objections notwithstanding,  it seems  that it is still necessary to  decide  the.  questions raised, i.e., whether the services rendered to  the special administrator named in the will, previous  to his actual appointment  as  such and  at his instance, are chargeable against the estate.

There  is  no  question .that the  services  rendered were for the benefit of the estate.   The Rules require  that the administrator should submit an inventory of the properties of the  estate within  three months from his appointment (Sec.  1,  Rule  84, Rules of  Court).   As  Mr.  Ozaeta expected  to be appointed  administrator of  the  estate  immediately, in view of his  designation  as  executor  of the will of  the  decedent, it was  proper,  necessary  and expedient  for  him, even before  his actual appointment, to employ  the  services  of  accountants  in  order  that  they can  prepare the accounts  or  the inventory in due  time and within  the period  prescribed by the  Rules.

The  general  rule  is that  acts  done by  an executor in the interest of his trust,  prior  to  his qualification as such, become binding on the estate upon his  qualification (Baker vs. Cauthorn,  et al.,  55  N. E.  963).  In  the said  case the court held:

"It  is contended by appellant  that the  services  rendered by appellees were to the said James E. Baker before he actually became the executor of decedent's will, and that said Baker  is individually liable for the value of whatever  services were  so  rendered, and not said estate. It is not contended  that appellees were  not retained, nor that the  advice was not given, nor that the  services were not of the value  of $100,  but  the sole contention  seems to be that, because the actual work which was done occurred prior to "the time appellant  in fact qualified as executor, said  Baker was individually liable,  and appellees had no  claim against the  estate  which he (Baker) was representing. * *  *

"We think  the evidence sustains the  finding and judgment of the lower court.  It shows that the services rendered  by  appellees were connected  with the settlement  of his decedent's estate.  There was no special agreement between  James E. Baker and  appellees that they were to look to the estate  alone for payment; hence they  could, if they so  desired, look to said James  E.  Baker personally for the value  of such services.  Long  vs.  Rodman,  58 Ind.  58.  Appellees "waived the right to hold said James E.  Baker personally and elected to hold the estate, for the value  of such services. * *  *  After the executor  has qualified,  Ms  authority over the decedent's property reaches back to  the time of the decedent's death, and  covers all acts done  by him in the interest' of his trust. Gilkey m; Hamilton, 22  Mich. 283.  Under  the evidence in this case, we think the executor  of  the  will oil  Nancy  L.  Baker could  have the  claim of appellees, and rightfully insisted upon its allowance as a  credit in his settlement  of  the trust.  Not  having done  this, the only "way open to appellees to secure payment for their  services from the trust fund  was to file his claim  against the estate,  and  proceed as  the record  shows  they  have done.  We find no error in the record."  (Baker vs, Cauthorn, et al.,  supra, pp. 963-964.)

The services tendered in the years 1953-1954 were also as  useful to  the estate as those rendered  in  connection with  the  preparation  of  the inventory.  Whoever  may have  contracted the services of the accountants, whether it was Mr. Ozaeta before his appointment or the Philippine  Trust,  such services  were  for the benefit  of  the estate and have redounded to  the  estate's  benefit.

For  the foregoing considerations, the order denying payment  to the firm of  Sycip, Gorres, Velayo  & Co, of the sum  of P3,650 is hereby  reversed,  and  the authority for the payment of  the same by the special  administrator from the funds  of the estate is hereby  granted.  Without costs.

Paras,  C. J.,  Padilla,, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion,  Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.