Guardianship( Rules 92-97)

Romina M. Lozande
Presentor
Topics to be discussed:
Guardianship (Rules 92-97)
• Francisco v. CA, GR L-57438. Jan. 3, 1984, 212
Phil. 346
• Government of the Philippine Islands v. El
Monte De Piedad y Caja De Ahorras De Manila,
GR L-9959. Dec. 13, 1916, 35 Phil. 72
A. General powers and duties of guardians
B. Conditions of the bond of the guardian
C. Rule on Guardianship over minor
(AM 03-02-05-SC)
• Cabales v. CA, GR 162421. Aug. 31, 2007, 531
SCRA 691
• Hernandez v. San Juan-Santos, GR 166470,
Aug. 7, 2009, 595 SCRA 464
• People v. Flores, GR 188315. Aug. 25, 2010,
629 SCRA 478
• Uy v. CA, GR 109557. Nov. 29, 2000, 346 SCRA
246
 Guardianship
• It is the power of protective authority given by
law and imposed on an individual who is free and in the
enjoyment of his rights, over one whose weakness on
account of his age or other infirmity renders him unable
to protect himself.
• It may also describe the relation subsisting between the
guardian and the ward and involves the taking of
possession of an management of, the estate of another
unable to act for himself.
 Basis of Guardianship

• Where minors are involved, the State acts as

parens patriae.
Purpose and Nature of Guardianship

A guardian is appointed to safeguard the rights and

interests of minors and incompetent persons such
that Courts should be vigilant to see that the rights of
such persons are properly protected.
 Kinds of Guardian

a) Legal – those deemed as guardians without need

of a court appointment (Art. 225, Family Court);
b) Guardian ad litem – those appointed by courts of justice to
prosecute or defend a minor, insane or person declared to be
incompetent, in an action incourt; and
c) Judicial – those who are appointed by the court in pursuance to
law, as guardian for insane persons, prodigals, minor heirs or
deceased was veterans and other incompetent persons.
 Venue
• Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over
guardianship proceedings under the Rules of
Court. Where the ward is a resident, the
proceedings should be filed in the Regional Trial
Court in the province where such ward resides. If
the ward resides in a foreign country, the petition
mus be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the
province where his property is situated.
 Appointment of Guardians
Who may petition for appointment of guardian for resident (Rule 93, Sec. 1)
Incompetent Minor
Relative Relative
Friend Other person on behalf of the minor
Other person on behalf of the incompetent Minor himself if 14 years of age or over
who has no parent or lawful guardian Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare
Director of Health in favor of an insane and Development and Secretary of the
person who should be hospitalized or in favor Department of Health in case of an insane
of an isolated leper minor who needs to be hospitalized
Any one interested in the estate Any one interested in the estate of a non-
resident minor.
 Conditions of the Bond of the Guardian

a) To file with the court complete inventory of the

estate of the ward within 3 months;
b) To faithfully execute the duties of his trust to
manage and dispose of the estate according to the
Rules for the best interests of the ward, and to
provide for the proper use, custody, and education of
the ward;
c) To render a true account of all the estate, and of
the management and disposition of the same;
d) To settle his accounts with the court and deliver
overall the estate remaining in his hands to the
person entitled thereto;
e) To perform all orders of the court by him to be
performed (Sec. 1; Sec. 14, AM 03-02-05-SC)
 Selling and Encumbering Property of the Ward

It is not necessary for a grant of authority to the guardian to sell the

estate of the ward to state that the income is insufficient to maintain
the ward and his family or to maintain or educate the ward when a
minor. It is enough,as the other alternative of the law provides, that,
“it appears to the satisfaction of the court that it is for the benefits of
the ward that his real estate or some part thereof should be sold,
and the proceeds thereof put out at interest or invested in some
productive security.”
 General Powers and Duties of
Guardians

a) To have care and custody over the person of his ward,

and/or the management of his estate (Sec. 1);
b) To pay the just debts of his ward out of the latter‘s
estate (Sec. 2);
c) To bring or defend suits in behalf of the ward, and,
with the approval of the court, compound for debts
due the ward and give discharges to the debtor (Sec.3);
d) To manage the estate frugally and without waste, and
apply the income and profits to the comfortable and
suitable maintenance of the ward and his family (Sec.4);
e) To sell or encumber the real estate of the ward upon
being authorized to do so (Sec. 4);
f) To join in an assent to a partition of real or personal
estate held by the ward jointly or in common with
others (Sec. 5)
 Rule on Guardianship over Minors(AM 03-
02-05-SC)
• The father and mother shall jointly exercise legal
guardianship over the person and property of their
unemancipated common child without the necessity
of a court appointment. The Rule shall be
suppletory to the provisions of the Family Code on
guardianship.
On grounds authorized by law, any relative or other
person on behalf of a minor, or the minor himself if
14 years of age or over, may petition the Family
Court for the appointment of a general guardian over
the person or property, or both, of such minor. The
petition may also be filed by the Secretary of DSWD
and of the DOH in the case of an insane minor who
needs to be hospitalized.
 Cases:
Francisco v. CA, GR L-57438. Jan. 3, 1984, 212 Phil. 346
Facts:
• Petition for certiorari
• In this said petition for certiorari, petitioner Feliciano Francisco
challenged the validity of the Order of the Court of First Instance
of Bulacan, Fifth Judicial District, Branch II, now Regional Trial
Court, granting execution pending appeal of its decision by
relieving petitioner Feliciano Francisco as guardian of
incompetent Estefania San Pedro and appointing respondent
herein, Pelagio Francisco, in his instead.
Issue:

(a)Whether or not the removal of petitioner as guardian of the ward

Estefania San Pedro on the ground of old age is a good ground for
the execution of the decision pending appeal;

(b)Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to question the

appointment of private respondent as guardian in his stead on the
ground that the latter is older than the former by five (5) years.
Ruling:

1. The Court agree with the trial court and the appellate
court that 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
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.
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.
2. No.
As to the issue concerning the appointment of respondent Pelagio
Francisco as the new guardian, We likewise agree with the
respondent appellate court in denying in its resolution of June 26,
1981 for lack of merit the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioner questioning the appointment of private respondent Pelagio
Francisco. We also find no abuse of discretion committed by the
appellate court.
The rule is well-established that appellate courts may not entertain
issues brought before it for the first time on appeal.
 Government of the Philippine Islands v. El Monte De Piedad y
Caja De Ahorras De Manila, GR L-9959. Dec. 13, 1916, 35 Phil. 72
Facts:
The Philippine Islands filed a suit against the Monte de Piedad to
recover, “through the Attorney-General and in representation of
the Government of the Philippine Islands,” the $80.000, together
with interest. After due trial, judgment was entered in favor of the
plaintiff. Defendant appealed and made the following contentions:
• that the $80,000, given to the Monte de Piedad y Caja de
Ahorros, were so given as a donation, and that said donation
had been cleared;
• that the Government of the Philippine Islands has not
subrogated the Spanish Government in its rights
Issue:
Whether or not the government of the Philippine Islands has
capacity to file a suit against the Monte de Piedad for the recovery
of the said amount.
Ruling:
Under the Principle of Parens Patriae, the Philippine Government
being the guardian of the “rights of the people” can represent the
legitimate claimants of the beneficiary and therefore has the
capacity to file a suit against the appellant. The Philippine
Government is not merely a nominal party that’s why it can bring
and prosecute this action by exercising its sovereign powers. The
supreme court then held the right of the government to file the
case.
 Cabales v. CA, GR 162421. Aug. 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 691

Facts:
• This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of
the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with
modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Maasin,
Southern Leyte, Branch 25.

• The resolution of the Court of Appeals dated February 23, 2004,

which denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, is likewise
herein assailed.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners may redeem the subject land from
respondents-spouses
Ruling:
Legal redemption may only be exercised by the co-owner or co-
owners who did not part with his or their pro-indiviso share in the
property held in common. As demonstrated, the sale as to the
undivided share of petitioner Rito became valid and binding upon
his ratification on July 24, 1986 when he received his share of the
proceeds of the sale on July 24, 1986, when he was 24 years old.
As a result, he lost his right to redeem subject property.
However, the sale as to the undivided share of petitioner Nelson and his
mother was not valid such that they were not divested of their ownership
thereto. Necessarily, they may redeem the subject property from respondents-
spouses. But they must do so within thirty days from notice in writing of the
sale by their co-owners vendors. The Court is satisfied that there was
sufficient notice of the sale to petitioner Nelson. The thirty-day redemption
period commenced in 1993, after petitioner Nelson sought the barangay
conciliation process to redeem his property. By January 12, 1995, when
petitioner Nelson filed a complaint for legal redemption and damages, it was
clear that the thirty-day period had already expired.

Petitioner Nelson, as correctly held by the CA, can no longer redeem subject
property. But he and his mother remain co-owners thereof with respondents-
spouses. Accordingly, title to subject property must include them.
 Hernandez v. San Juan-Santos, GR 166470, Aug. 7, 2009, 595 SCRA 464

Facts:
The respondent in this case filed a petition for guardianship and demanded
an inventory and accounting of Lulu’s estate from petitioners. Lulu sought the
help of the respondent because she was suspecting that the the herein
petitioners, her half siblings, and her father are dissipating her estate. Medical
specialists testified to explain the results of Lulu’s examinations which
revealed the alarming state of her health.Not only was Lulu severely afflicted
with diabetes mellitus and suffering from its complications,she also had an
existing artheroselorotic cardiovascular disease (which was aggravated by her
obesity). Furthermore, they unanimously opined that in view of Lulu’s
intelligence level (which was below average) and fragile mental state, she
would not be able to care for herself and self-administer her medications.
Issue:
Whether or not Lulu is an incompetent who requires the appointment of a
judicial guardian over her person and property
Ruling:
Yes. Under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court,31 persons who, though of
sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar causes
are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without outside
aid, are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under
guardianship. The RTC and the CA both found that Lulu was incapable of taking
care of herself and her properties without outside aid due to her ailments and
weak mind. Thus, since determining whether or not Lulu is in fact an
incompetent would require a reexamination of the evidence presented in the
courts a quo, it undoubtedly involves questions of fact.
As a general rule, the Supreme Court only resolves questions of law
in a petition for review. It only takes cognizance of questions of fact
in exceptional circumstances, none of which is present in this case.It
thus adopts the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the
CA.Similarly, the Court see no compelling reason to reverse the trial
and appellate courts’ finding as to the propriety of respondent's
appointment as the judicial guardian of Lulu. Consequently,
respondent is tasked to care for and take full custody of Lulu, and
manage her estate as well.Inasmuch as respondent’s appointment
as the judicial guardian of Lulu was proper, the issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus in her favor was also in order.
 People v. Flores, GR 188315. Aug. 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 478

Facts:
This is an appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeals finding
appellant Isidro Flores y Lagua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
two (2) counts of rape.
In the pieces of information given, which are similarly worded except
for the dates of the commission of the crime and the age of the
complainant, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati
City, Branch 140, appellant was accused of raping AAA.
Issue:
Whether or not appellant can be considered as guardian to prove
qualifying circumstance of relationship in a rape case
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in
considering the qualifying circumstance of relationship. The
appellant cannot be considered as the guardian falling within the
ambit of the amendatory provision introduced by Republic Act No.
7659. He would not fall either in the category of the "common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim" in the same enumeration, since
his liaison is with respect to the aunt of [AAA].
Since both logic and fact conjointly demonstrate that he is actually
only a custodian, that is, a mere caretaker of the children over
whom he exercises a limited degree of authority for a temporary
period, the Court cannot impose the death penalty contemplated
for a real guardian under the amendments introduced by Republic
Act No. 7659, since he does not fit into that category.
Further, this qualifying circumstance of being a guardian was not
even mentioned in the Information. What was clearly stated was
that appellant was the "adopting father" of AAA, which the
prosecution nonetheless failed to establish.
For failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstance
of relationship, appellant could only be convicted for two (2)
counts of simple rape, and not qualified rape.
 Uy v. CA, GR 109557. Nov. 29, 2000, 346 SCRA 246

Facts:
The case is an appeal via certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals
and its resolution denying reconsideration reversing that of the Regional Trial
Court, Iloilo, Branch 323 and declaring void the special proceedings instituted
therein by petitioners to authorize petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza, in view of the
comatose condition of her husband, Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., with the approval of
the court, to dispose of their conjugal property in favor of co-petitioners, their
daughter and son in law, for the ostensible purpose of "financial need in the
personal, business and medical expenses of her ‘incapacitated’ husband."
"This case stems from a dispute between Teodoro L. Jardeleza
(herein respondent) on the one hand, against his mother Gilda L.
Jardeleza, and sister and brother-in-law, the spouses Jose Uy and
Glenda Jardeleza (herein petitioners) on the other hand. The
controversy came about as a result of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr.’s
suffering of a stroke which left him comatose and bereft of any
motor or mental faculties. Said Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. is the father of
herein respondent Teodoro Jardeleza and husband of herein private
respondent Gilda Jardeleza.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza as the wife of
Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. may assume sole powers of administration
of the conjugal property under Article 124 of the Family Code and
dispose of a parcel of land with its improvements
Ruling:
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 non-consenting
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 semi-comatose condition, a
victim of stroke, cerebrovascular accident, without motor and
mental faculties, and with a diagnosis of brain stem infarct.9 In
such case, the proper remedy is a judicial guardianship
proceedings under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised 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, 1964 Revised Rules of Court, not the summary judicial
proceedings under the Family Code. Thus, the Supreme Court
affirmed the decision of the CA and ruled in favor of the respondent.