Case Compilation Guardianship.docx

CASES ADOPTION 1. [G.R. No. L-23096. April 27, 1972.] MARTIN NERY and LEONCIA L. DE LEON v ROSARIO ALFREDO, MARIANO, PACIFICO, ONOFRE, TEOFILO, LOLOY and TRINIDAD, all surnamed LORENZO

FACTS



 

[G.R. No. L-23376. April 27, 1972] DIONISIO, PERFECTO, MARIA REBECCA, ASUNCION, MAURO and LOURDES, all surnamed LORENZO vs. MARTIN NERY and LEONCIA L. DE LEON

 



RULING

The property in question was originally owned by Florentino Ferrer and his three sisters, Agueda, Tomasa and Silvestra, and brother, Meliton. A sale was made in favor of Leoncino Lorenzo. However, Silvestra did not sell her ¼ share. Hence Leoncino and Silvestra are co-owners. Sps Nery bought the piece of land sold by Leoncino’s widow, Bienvenida. The Vendor was Bienvenida de la Isla, the widow of the deceased Leoncino Lorenzo and the Guardian of their children Dionisio, Perfecto, Maria Rebecca, Asuncion, Mauro and Lourdes o The children contend that they were not informed of the sale and the institution of the guardianship was heard without the 2 elder children Dioniso and Perfecto being notified, when they were already 14 years of age. The heirs of Silvestra Ferrer who originally owned ¼ intervened Lower court o adjudged Leoncino and Silvestra heirs as co-owners o widow’s sale was null and void, no jurisdiction since no notice to elder children o recognized the right of the children to ½ of the ¾ CA, modified o Declared Silvestra heirs owners in common of ¼ share o Declared valid the sale of the whole ¾ without prejudice to the children

AFFIRMED with corresponding modification that Dionisio, Perfecto, Maria Rebecca, Asuncion, Mauro and Lourdes, all surnamed Lorenzo are adjudged coowners to the extent of one-half of the three-fourths of the property in question, which was not validly sold as probate court did not acquire jurisdiction to approve guardianship, there being no notice to the 2 elder children, aged above 14. the lower court handed down decision on June 24, 1961, finding that in the guardianship proceedings, the court acquired no jurisdiction over the persons of the minors who were not notified of the petition, at least 2 of them being over 14 years of age; that as the inventory submitted by the guardian stated that the minors had no real estate, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the real property of the minors and could not have validly authorized its sale, and the total absence of the requisite notice necessarily rendered the order of sale, . . . null and void, and the defendant, Martin S. Nery, a lawyer, could not be considered a purchaser in good faith of the one half portion of the land belonging to the minors; . . . that as Silvestra Ferrer, one of the sisters of Florentino Ferrer, did not sign the deed of sale . . . upon her death in 1952, her 1/4 portion of the land passed to her nearest relatives, the third-party plaintiffs who are children of her sister, Rosario, Alfredo, Mariano, Pacico, Onofre, Teolo, Loloy and Trinidad all surnamed Lorenzo Tomasa Ferrer, whose action had not prescribed. Bienvenida de la Isla, then the wife of said Leoncio F . Lorenzo, knew of this purchase made by her deceased husband, and she had no right to mortgage the whole land which, for taxation purposes was declared in her husband's name, without the consent of aforenamed successorsin-interest of Silvestra Ferrer, much less sell the same afterwards to the defendant spouses, Martin S. Nery and Leoncia L. de Leon, even if authorized by the guardianship court, said authority having been granted upon her misrepresentation, contained in her petition of May 26, 1953, that her minor children, the plaintiff's herein, were the owners in common of 1/2 portion of the land in question, the other 1/2 pertaining to her. The failure of respondent Court of Appeals to give due weight to the grave jurisdictional defect that tainted the guardianship proceeding resulted in its judgment suffering the corrosion of substantial legal error. "When a petition for the appointment of a general guardian is led, the court shall x a time and place for hearing the same, and shall cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons mentioned in the petition residing in the province, including the minor if above 14 years of age or the incompetent himself, and may direct other general or special notice

from asking the value from their mother.

thereof to be given." 8 8 The late Chief Justice Moran was quite explicit as to its jurisdictional character. These are his words: "Service of the notice upon the minor if above 14 years of age or upon the incompetent, is jurisdictional. Without such notice, the court acquires no jurisdiction to appoint a guardian." Respondent Court of Appeals cannot therefore be sustained in its assumption that the probate court could have authorized the sale in question. The jurisdictional infirmity was too patent to be overcome. It was the lower court that acted correctly. The rights of young are not to be ignored. where minors are involved, the State acts as p a r e n s p a t ria e. To it is cast the duty of protecting the rights of persons or individual who because of age or incapacity are in an unfavorable position, vis - a- vis other parties. Unable as they are to take due care of what concerns them, they have the political community to look after their welfare. At no time had the deceased Leoncio Lorenzo ever denied that he was holding such property in the capacity of trustee for them. His widow, Bienvenida de la Isla, the vendor, could not assert any other right, except that traceable to her late husband. Nery, being a lawyer should have been aware of the lack of Bienvenida’s authority.

2. [G.R. No. L-57438. January 31, 1984.] FELICIANO FRANCISCO vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PELAGIO FRANCISCO,

 



"Petitioner is the duly appointed guardian of the incompetent Estefania San Pedro Respondent Pelagio Francisco, claiming to be a first cousin of Estefania San Pedro, together with two others, said to be nieces of the incompetent, petitioned the court for the removal of petitioner and for the appointment in his stead of respondent Pelagio Francisco. Among other grounds, the petition was based on the failure of the guardian to submit an inventory of the estate of his ward and to render an accounting. Thereafter, Petitioner rendered an inventory and accounting, which was opposed to by respondent saying the stated value of the sale was less than the

AFFIRMED. A guardianship is a trust relation of the most sacred character, in which one person, called a "guardian" acts for another called the "ward" whom the law regards as incapable of managing his own affairs. A guardianship is designed to further the ward's well-being, not that of the guardian. It is intended to preserve the ward's property, as well as to render any assistance that the ward may personally require. It has been stated that while custody involves immediate care and control, guardianship indicates not only those responsibilities, but those of one in loco parentis as well. A guardian is or becomes incompetent to serve the trust if he is so disqualified by mental incapacity, conviction of crime, moral delinquency or physical disability as to be prevented from properly discharging the duties of his office. 14 14 A guardian, once appointed may be removed in case he becomes insane or otherwise incapable of discharging his trust or unsuitable therefor, or has wasted or mismanaged the estate, or failed for thirty (30) days after it is due to render an account or make a return.

 

3. JOSE UY and his Spouse GLENDA J. UY and GILDA L. JARDELEZA vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORO L. JARDELEZA

 





actual value. Such was found out to be true by the judge. Hence, the Petitioner was relieved. Upon motion, the judge said it was too harsh. But still relieved petitioner on the ground of old age. Petitioner contends, court a q u o abuse its discretion in appointing respondent as guardian despite the fact that private respondent is five (5) years older than petitioner

The conclusion reached by the trial court about the "rather advanced age" of petitioner at 72 years old (petitioner is now 76 years old) finding him unfit to continue the trust cannot be disturbed. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court, this finds direct support in the delay of the accounting and inventory made by petitioner. To sustain petitioner as guardian would, therefore, be detrimental to the ward.

Petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza instituted before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo a petition to declare her husband Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. incapacitated, in view his comatose condition, and to authorize her to assume sole powers of administration of their conjugal properties and to dispose the same, with the approval of the court, to their daughter and son-in-law, her copetitioners herein, to defray the mounting expenses for treatment and hospitalization of her incapacitated husband. RTC, granted o Saying the petition was based on Art 124 of the Family Code and governed by Art 253 o Respondent, son of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. moved for reconsideration contending, among others, that the rules governing special proceedings in the Revised Rules of Court should be followed. o Which was denied. CA, reversed and declared void the proceeding. Ruling that the proper remedy was the appointment of a judicial guardian of the person or estate or both of such

AFFIRMED. In regular manner, the rules on summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code govern the proceedings under Article 124 of the Family Code. The situation contemplated is one where the spouse is absent, or separated in fact or has abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be obtained. Such rules do not apply to cases where the nonconsenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give consent. In this case, the trial court found that the subject spouse "is an incompetent" who was in comatose or semicomatose condition, a victim of stroke, cerebrovascular accident, without motor and mental faculties, and with a diagnosis of brain stem infarct. In such case, the proper remedy is a judicial guardianship proceedings under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court. Even assuming that the rules of summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code may apply to the wife's administration of the conjugal property, the law provides that the wife who assumes sole powers of administration has the same powers and duties as a guardian under the Rules of Court. Consequently, a spouse who desires to sell real property as such administrator of the conjugal property must observe the procedure for the sale of the ward's estate required of judicial guardians under Rule 95 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court, not the summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code.

incompetent, under Rule 93, Section 1, 1964 Revised Rules of Court.     