CASE Digest

(1)

2. G.R. No. L-57438 January 3, 1984 2. G.R. No. L-57438 January 3, 1984 FELICIANO FRANCISCO,

FELICIANO FRANCISCO, petitioner,petitioner, vs.

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PELAGIO FRANCISCO,

HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PELAGIO FRANCISCO, respondents.respondents. Facts:

Facts:

Petitioner is the duly appointed guardian of the incompetent Estefania San Pedro in Petitioner is the duly appointed guardian of the incompetent Estefania San Pedro in Special Proceedings of the cfi of Bulacan. Respondent Pelagio Francisco, claiming to Special Proceedings of the cfi of Bulacan. Respondent Pelagio Francisco, claiming to be a first cousin of Estefania San Pedro, together with two others, petitioned the be a first cousin of Estefania San Pedro, together with two others, petitioned the court for the removal of petitioner and for the appointment in his stead grounded on court for the removal of petitioner and for the appointment in his stead grounded on the failure of the guardian to submit an inventory of the estate of his ward and to the failure of the guardian to submit an inventory of the estate of his ward and to render an accounting. Respondent Judge also ordered the retirement of petitioner on render an accounting. Respondent Judge also ordered the retirement of petitioner on the ground of old age.

the ground of old age.

Petitioner also contended that to grant execution pending appeal would render Petitioner also contended that to grant execution pending appeal would render petitioner's appeal moot and academic that "advanced age" was not one of the, petitioner's appeal moot and academic that "advanced age" was not one of the, grounds raised by private respondent in the court below; that the court

grounds raised by private respondent in the court below; that the court a quoa quo abuse abuse its discretion in appointing respondent as guardian despite the fact that private its discretion in appointing respondent as guardian despite the fact that private respondent is five (5) years older than petitioner.

respondent is five (5) years older than petitioner. Issue:

Issue:

Whether or not the removal of petitioner as guardian of the ward on the ground of old age is a good Whether or not the removal of petitioner as guardian of the ward on the ground of old age is a good ground for the execution of the decision pending appeal?

ground for the execution of the decision pending appeal? Held:

Held:

There is need for petitioner Feliciano Francisco to be retired from the guardianship over the person and There is need for petitioner Feliciano Francisco to be retired from the guardianship over the person and property of incompetent Estefania San Pedro. The conclusion reached by the trial court about the "rather property of incompetent Estefania San Pedro. 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 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 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, the delay of the accounting and inventory made by petitioner. To sustain petitioner as guardian would, therefore, be detrimental to the ward. While age alone is not a control criterion in determining a person's therefore, be detrimental to the ward. While age alone is not a control criterion in determining a person's fitness or qualification to be appointed or be retained as guardian, it may be a factor for consideration. fitness or qualification to be appointed or be retained as guardian, it may be a factor for consideration. Upon urgent and compelling reasons, execution pending appeal is a matter of sound discretion on Upon urgent and compelling reasons, execution pending appeal is a matter of sound discretion on the part of the trial court.

the part of the trial court.

Inasmuch as the primary objective for the institution of guardianship is for the protection of the ward, Inasmuch as the primary objective for the institution of guardianship is for the protection of the ward, there is more than sufficient reason for the immediate execution of the lower court's judgment for the there is more than sufficient reason for the immediate execution of the lower court's judgment for the replacement of the first guardian.

replacement of the first guardian. 3.

3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

appellee, vs

. MAURICIO WATIWAT,. MAURICIO WATIWAT,

appellant

.. Facts:

Facts:

March, 1996 and subsequent thereto in barangay Bato, Bansud, province of Oriental Mindoro, March, 1996 and subsequent thereto in barangay Bato, Bansud, province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, by means of force, Philippines the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay with and have threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay with and have

(2)

carnal knowledge of one MARITES WATIWAT, his 10-year-old niece living in his own house carnal knowledge of one MARITES WATIWAT, his 10-year-old niece living in his own house and therefore a guardian and relative within the third civil degree, against her will and without and therefore a guardian and relative within the third civil degree, against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the Offended Party.

her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the Offended Party. Accused

Accused was was found found guilty guilty andand trial court imposed death penalty on the basis of itstrial court imposed death penalty on the basis of its conclusion that he is her guardian.

conclusion that he is her guardian. Issue ?

Issue ?

Whether or not the accused is the guardian of the victim? Whether or not the accused is the guardian of the victim? Held:

Held:

There are three kinds of guardians under the law: (a) the legal guardian, who is such There are three kinds of guardians under the law: (a) the legal guardian, who is such by provision of law without the need of judicial appointment, as in the case of the parents by provision of law without the need of judicial appointment, as in the case of the parents over the persons of their minor children, or the father, or in his absence the mother, with over the persons of their minor children, or the father, or in his absence the mother, with respect to the property of the minor children not exceeding P50,000.00 in value

respect to the property of the minor children not exceeding P50,000.00 in value ;;[28][28] _{(b) the}_{(b) the} guardian

guardian

ad litem

, a competent person appointed by the court for purposes of a, a competent person appointed by the court for purposes of a particular

particular action or proceediaction or proceeding involving a minor; ng involving a minor; and (c) the and (c) the judicial guardijudicial guardian, onean, one appointed by the court over the person and/or property of the ward to represent the latter appointed by the court over the person and/or property of the ward to represent the latter in all his civil acts and transaction

in all his civil acts and transaction ..[29][29]

As shown by the facts in this case, appellant is not Marites guardian, whether As shown by the facts in this case, appellant is not Marites guardian, whether natural, legal

natural, legal or judicial. That he allowed his surname to be used as her surname in heror judicial. That he allowed his surname to be used as her surname in her Certificate of Live Birth is inconsequential.

Certificate of Live Birth is inconsequential.

At most, appellant was only an uncommitted caretaker of Marites over a limited At most, appellant was only an uncommitted caretaker of Marites over a limited period of time. Clearly, he cannot be considered a guardian falling within the ambit of the period of time. Clearly, he cannot be considered a guardian falling within the ambit of the amendatory provision of Section 11, Republic Act No. 7659.

amendatory provision of Section 11, Republic Act No. 7659.

In view of the failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstance of In view of the failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstance of guardianship or relations

guardianship or relationship, it is hip, it is error for the trial error for the trial court to convict appellant for qualifiedcourt to convict appellant for qualified rape and impose upon him the supreme penalty of death.

rape and impose upon him the supreme penalty of death.

12.

12. G.R. G.R. No. No. L-3071 L-3071 May May 29, 29, 19501950 SALVACION LOPEZ,

SALVACION LOPEZ, petitioner, petitioner, vs.

vs.

JOSE TEODORO, Sr., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, EULALIO JOSE TEODORO, Sr., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, EULALIO LOPEZ, Jr., and JESUS JALBUENA,

LOPEZ, Jr., and JESUS JALBUENA, respondents. respondents. Facts:

Facts:

Eulalio Lopez, Sr., an incapacitated under the judicial guardianship of Eulalio Lopez, Jr., was the Eulalio Lopez, Sr., an incapacitated under the judicial guardianship of Eulalio Lopez, Jr., was the exclusive and absolute owner of an

(3)

Court of First Instance, acting upon a motion of Gamboa’s (creditors) filed in the proceedings for Court of First Instance, acting upon a motion of Gamboa’s (creditors) filed in the proceedings for guardianship ordered the guardian to pay the movants P7,312 plus 12 per cent interest amount guardianship ordered the guardian to pay the movants P7,312 plus 12 per cent interest amount which represented loans properly authorized by court. Thus the guardian Eulalio Jr sold the tract of which represented loans properly authorized by court. Thus the guardian Eulalio Jr sold the tract of land, the only property possessed by the ward.

land, the only property possessed by the ward. Although Eulalio

Although Eulalio Lopez, Jr. Lopez, Jr. was was the the judicial judicial guardian, the guardian, the incapacitatincapacitated ed was under was under the the actual careactual care and custody of his sister, Salvacion Lopez. Believing that the sale was prejudicial to her brother's and custody of his sister, Salvacion Lopez. Believing that the sale was prejudicial to her brother's interest, Salvacion filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order authorizing said sale, and interest, Salvacion filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order authorizing said sale, and upon the motion being denied, she brought this petition for

upon the motion being denied, she brought this petition for certiorari certiorari and andmandamusmandamus, contending that, contending that the sale was null and void by reason of the court's failure to adhere to Rule 96.

the sale was null and void by reason of the court's failure to adhere to Rule 96. Issue:

Issue:

Whether or not the said sale was unlawful? Whether or not the said sale was unlawful? Held:

Held: It is not. It is not. First, it i

First, it is evident that appeal and nots evident that appeal and not certiorari certiorari or ormandamusmandamus is the proper remedy. is the proper remedy.

Petitioner has no legal interest in her complaint. The incapacitated has children, all of age, one of Petitioner has no legal interest in her complaint. The incapacitated has children, all of age, one of whom is the judicial guardian, while the petitioner is only

whom is the judicial guardian, while the petitioner is only the ward's sister. Not being the ward's sister. Not being Eulalio Lopez'Eulalio Lopez'ss forced heir, she was not prejudiced by the sale she seeks to impugn. It is true that she was a creditor forced heir, she was not prejudiced by the sale she seeks to impugn. It is true that she was a creditor but she does not claim any right to be notified of the sale as such creditor, and her credit was not but she does not claim any right to be notified of the sale as such creditor, and her credit was not impaired. On the contrary, she was benefited by the sale in that she was paid what was due her from impaired. On the contrary, she was benefited by the sale in that she was paid what was due her from its proceeds.

its proceeds.

The petitioner insist that she is next of kin. She is in error. "Next of kin" within the meaning of Rule 96 The petitioner insist that she is next of kin. She is in error. "Next of kin" within the meaning of Rule 96 are relatives whose relationship is such that they are entitled to

are relatives whose relationship is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as share in the estate as distributes.distributes.

14.

BONIFACIA P. VANCIL,

p

pe

ettiittiio

one

nerr,

, vvs.

s.

HELEN G. BELMES,

respondent

..

G.R. No. 132223. June 19, 2001 G.R. No. 132223. June 19, 2001

Facts: Facts:

Petitioner, Bonifacia Vancil, is the mother of Reeder C. Vancil, a Navy serviceman of the United Petitioner, Bonifacia Vancil, is the mother of Reeder C. Vancil, a Navy serviceman of the United States of America who died in the said country. Reeder had two (2) children named Valerie and States of America who died in the said country. Reeder had two (2) children named Valerie and Vincent by his common-law wife, Helen G. Belmes. P

Vincent by his common-law wife, Helen G. Belmes. Petitioner etitioner commenced before the Regional commenced before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City a guardianship proceedings over the persons and properties of said Trial Court of Cebu City a guardianship proceedings over the persons and properties of said minors which was granted and appointed her as their legal and judicial guardian.

minors which was granted and appointed her as their legal and judicial guardian.

Helen Belmes (mother) opposed to the subject guardianship proceedings asseverating that she Helen Belmes (mother) opposed to the subject guardianship proceedings asseverating that she had already filed a similar petition for guardianship efore the RTC of Pabgadian City.

had already filed a similar petition for guardianship efore the RTC of Pabgadian City.

Helen followed her opposition with a motion for the Removal of Guardian and Appointment of a Helen followed her opposition with a motion for the Removal of Guardian and Appointment of a New One, asserting that she is the natural mother in actual custody of and exercising parental New One, asserting that she is the natural mother in actual custody of and exercising parental

(4)

authority over the subject minors; that the petition was filed under an improper venue; and that authority over the subject minors; that the petition was filed under an improper venue; and that at the time the petition was filed Bonifacia Vancil was a resident of 140 Hurliman Court, Canon at the time the petition was filed Bonifacia Vancil was a resident of 140 Hurliman Court, Canon City, Colorado, U.S.A. being a naturalized American citizen.

City, Colorado, U.S.A. being a naturalized American citizen.

Issue:

Who between the mother and grandmother of minors should be the guardian.? Who between the mother and grandmother of minors should be the guardian.? Held:

Held:

Respondent, being the natural mother of the minor, has the preferential right over that of

petitioner

petitioner to

to be

be his

his guardian. Considering

guardian. Considering that

that Valerie

Valerie is

is already

already of

of major

major age,

age, this

this petition

petition has

has

become moot with respect to her.

Art. 211. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the

persons

persons of

of their

their common children. In

common children. In case

case of

of disagreement, the

disagreement, the fathers

fathers decision

decision shall

shall

prevail, unless there is a judicial o

prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.

rder to the contrary.

Petitioner, as the surviving grandparent, can exercise substitute parental authority only in

case of death, absence or unsuitability of respondent. Considering that respondent is very much

alive and has exercised continuously parental authority over Vincent, petitioner has to prove, in

asserting her right to be the minors guardian, respondents unsuitability. Petitioner, however, has

not proffered convincing evidence showing that respondent is not suited to be the guardian of

Vincent.

Vincent. Petitioner merely

Petitioner merely insists that responden

insists that respondent is

t is morally unfit

morally unfit as guardian

as guardian of Valerie

of Valerie

considering that her (respondents) live-in partner raped Valerie several times. But Valerie, being

now of major age, is no

now of major age, is no longer a subject of this guardianship proceeding.

longer a subject of this guardianship proceeding.

Even assuming that respondent is unfit as guardian of minor Vincent, still petitioner cannot

qualify as a substitute guardian. It bears stressing that she is an American citizen she will not be

able to perform the responsibilities and obligations required of a gua

able to perform the responsibilities and obligations required of a gua rdian.

rdian.

19.

19.G.R. No. 74769 September 28, 1990G.R. No. 74769 September 28, 1990 BEATRIZ F. GONZALES,

BEATRIZ F. GONZALES, petitioner,petitioner, vs.

vs.

HON. ZOILO AGUINALDO, Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati, Metro Manila HON. ZOILO AGUINALDO, Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati, Metro Manila and TERESA F. OLBES,

and TERESA F. OLBES, respondents.respondents.

Facts: Facts:

In an intestate proceeding involving the estate of the deceased Doña Ramona Gonzales Vda. de In an intestate proceeding involving the estate of the deceased Doña Ramona Gonzales Vda. de Faviswhich was survived by her four (4) children namely, Asterio Favis, Beatriz F. Gonzales, Teresa Faviswhich was survived by her four (4) children namely, Asterio Favis, Beatriz F. Gonzales, Teresa F. Olbes, and Cecilia Favis-Gomez. The court appointed petitioner Beatriz Gonzales and private F. Olbes, and Cecilia Favis-Gomez. The court appointed petitioner Beatriz Gonzales and private respondent Teresa Olbes as co-administratices of the estate.

respondent Teresa Olbes as co-administratices of the estate.

Respondent Teresa filed a motion to remove Beatriz as co-administratrix, on the ground that she is Respondent Teresa filed a motion to remove Beatriz as co-administratrix, on the ground that she is incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust and had committed acts and omissions detrimental to incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust and had committed acts and omissions detrimental to

(5)

the interest of the estate and the heirs because petitioner was in the United States accompanying the interest of the estate and the heirs because petitioner was in the United States accompanying her ailing husband

her ailing husband who was who was receivireceiving ng medical treatment in that medical treatment in that country. Thus, respondent country. Thus, respondent judgejudge cancelled the letters of administration granted to Beatriz F. Gonzales and retained Teresa Olbes as cancelled the letters of administration granted to Beatriz F. Gonzales and retained Teresa Olbes as the administratrix of the estate of the late Ramona Gonzales.

the administratrix of the estate of the late Ramona Gonzales.

Issue: Issue:

Whether or not respondent judge erred in removing petitioner as

co-Whether or not respondent judge erred in removing petitioner as co- administratrix? administratrix? Held:

Held:

Yes respondent judge erred. Yes respondent judge erred. The court

The court a quoa quo did not base the removal of the petitioner as co-administratrix on any of the causes did not base the removal of the petitioner as co-administratrix on any of the causes specified in respondent's motion for relief of the petitioner. The court based the removal of the specified in respondent's motion for relief of the petitioner. The court based the removal of the petitioner on the fact that in the administration of the estate, conflicts and misunderstandings have petitioner on the fact that in the administration of the estate, conflicts and misunderstandings have existed between petitioner and respondent.

existed between petitioner and respondent. The court

The court a quoa quo failed to find hard facts showing that the conflict and disharmony between the two failed to find hard facts showing that the conflict and disharmony between the two (2) co-administratrices were unjustly caused by petitioner, or that petitioner was guilty of (2) co-administratrices were unjustly caused by petitioner, or that petitioner was guilty of incompetence in the fulfillment of her duties, or prevented the management of the estate according incompetence in the fulfillment of her duties, or prevented the management of the estate according to the dictates of prudence, or any other act or omission showing that her continuance as to the dictates of prudence, or any other act or omission showing that her continuance as co-administratrix of the estate materially endangers the interests of the estate.

administratrix of the estate materially endangers the interests of the estate.

Petitioner had never abandoned her role as co-administratrix of the estate nor had she been remiss Petitioner had never abandoned her role as co-administratrix of the estate nor had she been remiss in the fullfilment of her duties. Temporary absence in the state does not disqualify one to be an in the fullfilment of her duties. Temporary absence in the state does not disqualify one to be an administrator of the estate. Thus, as held

administrator of the estate. Thus, as held in re Mc Knight's Will in re Mc Knight's Will , a temporary residence outside of the, a temporary residence outside of the state, maintained for the benefit of the health of the executors' family, is not such a removal from the state, maintained for the benefit of the health of the executors' family, is not such a removal from the state as to necessitate his removal as executor

state as to necessitate his removal as executor ..

20.

20. G.R. G.R. No. No. L-17066 L-17066 December December 28, 28, 19611961

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF CARMEN PADILLA VDA. DE BENGSON, IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF CARMEN PADILLA VDA. DE BENGSON, Incompetent. CARMEN PADILLA VDA. DE BENGSON,

Incompetent. CARMEN PADILLA VDA. DE BENGSON, petitioner-appellee, petitioner-appellee, vs.

vs.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, guardian-appellant, ADMINISTRATION OF VETERANS PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, guardian-appellant, ADMINISTRATION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, oppositor-appellant.

AFFAIRS, oppositor-appellant. Facts:

Facts: As

As the the mother mother of of a a veteran veteran who who died died in in World World War War II, II, Carmen Padilla Carmen Padilla Vda. Vda. de de Bengson becameBengson became entitled to certain accrued insurance benefits and to a monthly death compensation for the rest of entitled to certain accrued insurance benefits and to a monthly death compensation for the rest of her life, all extended by the United States Veterans Administration. The Veterans Administration filed her life, all extended by the United States Veterans Administration. The Veterans Administration filed a petition in the CFI of La Union adjudging Carmen Vda. de Bengzon to be an incompetent and a petition in the CFI of La Union adjudging Carmen Vda. de Bengzon to be an incompetent and appointing the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as guardian of her estate. Then letters of appointing the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as guardian of her estate. Then letters of guardianship were issued in favor of the Philippine National Bank.

(6)

Petitioner filed a petition asking for an order terminating the guardianship, and for delivery to her of Petitioner filed a petition asking for an order terminating the guardianship, and for delivery to her of the residuary estate alleging that she had regained her competence.

the residuary estate alleging that she had regained her competence.

Thereafter, the son of the ward, Francisco Bengson, filed a "Manifestation praying that he be Thereafter, the son of the ward, Francisco Bengson, filed a "Manifestation praying that he be appointed guardian of the ward's estate in place of the Philippine National Bank.

appointed guardian of the ward's estate in place of the Philippine National Bank. Issue:

Issue:

Whether or not respondent PNB

Whether or not respondent PNB should be removed as guardian ?should be removed as guardian ?

Held: Held:

The grounds for which a guardian may be removed are found in Section 2, Rule 98 of the Rules. The grounds for which a guardian may be removed are found in Section 2, Rule 98 of the Rules. When a guardian becomes insane or other

When a guardian becomes insane or otherwise wise incapable of dischaincapable of discharging his trust or unsurging his trust or unsuitableitable therefor, or has wasted or mismanaged the estate, or failed for thirty days after it is due to render an therefor, or has wasted or mismanaged the estate, or failed for thirty days after it is due to render an account or make a return, the court may, upon reasonable notice to the guardian, remove him, and account or make a return, the court may, upon reasonable notice to the guardian, remove him, and compel him to surrender the estate of the ward to the person found to be lawfully entitled thereto compel him to surrender the estate of the ward to the person found to be lawfully entitled thereto Nothing in the record would indicate, that there was any legal ground upon which the removal of the Nothing in the record would indicate, that there was any legal ground upon which the removal of the Philippine National Bank as guardian was founded. Neither in Francisco Bengzon's manifestation Philippine National Bank as guardian was founded. Neither in Francisco Bengzon's manifestation nor in the orders of the lower court is it made to appear that the Philippine National Bank had nor in the orders of the lower court is it made to appear that the Philippine National Bank had become incapable of discharging its trust or was unsuitable therefor, or that it had committed become incapable of discharging its trust or was unsuitable therefor, or that it had committed anything which the Rules includes as grounds for removal. On the contrary, it appears incontestable anything which the Rules includes as grounds for removal. On the contrary, it appears incontestable that all throughout, the Philippine National Bank has discharged its trust satisfactorily.