Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Guardianship Presentation For Specpro
Guardianship Presentation For Specpro
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
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.
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.