RECTO VS.

HARDEN, 100
PHIL 427, 1956
 She engaged the services of Atty. Recto for the
purpose of securing an increase in the amount of her
support from her husband Mr. (Fred) Harden and for the
purpose of protecting and preserving her right in the
properties of the conjugal partnership, in contemplation
of a divorce suit which she intended to file in the Court of
California
• 25% of whatever increase in support she will
get from Mr. (Fred) Harden
• Attorney’s fees charged as expenses of
litigation
• 20% of her share and participation which he
may receive in the funds and properties of
the conjugal partnership
• Mrs. Harden be given the exclusive administration of all businesses and
property of the conjugal partnership OR that defendants inform Mrs.
Harden of everything pertaining to the businesses and property of the
conjugal partnership
• That Mr. Harden account and return to the PH sums of money he withdrew
and sent to HK
• That transfers of shares of stock in the name of 3 rd persons and the
administrator Salumbides be cancelled and returned to the conjugal
partnership
• That a writ of preliminary injunction be issued against the defendant to
prevent them from disposing of the property and businesses of the
conjugal partnership
• Declaring the value of the conjugal partnership at around P4Million.
• Ordering that a conjugal lien be annotated in the TCT of a parcel of land in
QC, of certain shares of stock, which will say that any alienation of Mr.
Harden will be invalid for lack of consent of Mrs. Harden
• Increasing the allowance of both Mr. and Mrs. Harden to P2500 from the
previous P1500/month
• Ordering Mr. (Fred) Harden to inform Mrs. Harden of all property and
businesses belonging to the conjugal partnership
• That a receiver be appointed to prevent Mr. Harden and Salumbides from
disposing of the property despite the writ of preliminary injunction
• A settlement agreement between Mister and
Mrs. Harden for the sum of P5,000
• That a trust fund was created by Mr. Harden
from which a monthly pension of P500/month
would be taken
• The receiver appointed continue his functions
• He be declared entitled to the sum of P400,000 a his
fees for services rendered
• That the cases above continue since the receivership
is based on these cases, and that such cases are
important to safeguard his attorney’ fees
• That Mrs. Harden cannot bind the conjugal partnership
by the said Contract of Service without Mr. Harden’s
consent
• That Article 1491 of the Civil Code prohibits contingent
fees
• That the Contract of Service has for its purpose securing
a decree of divorce allegedly in violation of Articles
1305, 1352, and 1409 of Civil Code.
• Terms of the said Contract of Service are harsh,
inequitable and oppressive
ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Recto was entitled to P386,000

HELD:

• The Contract of Service does not seek to bind the conjugal

partnership
• It has already been held that contingent fees are not
prohibited in the Philippines and are impliedly sanctioned by
the Philippines’ Cannon of Professional Ethics.
• They are both US citizens, so divorce is allowed
• One who ask for equity must come with clean hands as well