RULES 94 and 97

Rule 94
Bonds of Guardians

A guardian is required to furnish a

bond for the protection of the property
of the minor to the end that the minor
may be assured of an honest
administration of his funds during his
minority. The bond serves as security to
persons interested and they shall
acquire a vested interest in the bond
which cannot be divested without their
consent,except in the manner
prescribed by law.
The amount of the bond is fixed by
the court with reference to the minors
estate. The bond takes effect on the day
of its date and of his appointment.
At the expiration of the trust,the
guardian must settle his account with
the court and deliver and pay over the
estate,effects and moneys remaining in
his hands or due from him to the person
entitled thereto.
If the bond given is insufficient, the
court will require additional security.
If a guardian is removed,it does not
relieve him or his bondsmen from
liability during the pendency of his
guardianship.
Guerrero v. Teran
Facts:
Leopoldo Teran was the administrator
of the estate of the deceased,Antonio
Munoz. He was the administrator from
Sept.1901 until March 1902,the date
when Maria Munoz was appointed
guardian of the heirs of Antonio who
were all minors.
In 1906,Maria was removed as
guardian on the ground that she was not
a resident of the Philippines at the time
of her appointment.
Salvador Guerrero,the new guardian
of the minors filed an action for
recovery and for certain costs from
Teran.
Issue:
Whether or not Teran as the
administrator of the estate is liable to
the plaintiff for loans contracted with
several persons for different accounts?
Held:
No. Teran was administrator only
from Sept.1901 when he was
appointed,until March 1902,when
Munoz was appointed as guardian of
the minors, as such,she was the actual
guardian of the minors and their estate
and is therefore responsible for the
administration of their interests in the
estate. If, during the time of her
guardianship,she allowed other persons
to handle the property of her wards and
if any mismanagement or loss occurs
thereby,the responsibility must fall
upon her. The mere fact that she had
been removed as said guardian did not
relieve her ,nor her bondsmen from
liability to the minors during the time
that she was duly acting as said
guardian.
*as to her removal as guardian-
Notwithstanding the fact that there
are no statutory requirements upon
this question,the courst charged with
the responsibility of protecting the
estates of deceased persons, or wards
of the estate ,will find much
difficulty in complying with this duty
by appointing those who are not
personally subject to their
jurisdiction.*
RULE 97
TERMINATION OF
GUARDIANSHIP

Guardianship is always understood

to be temporary because when minority
has passed or if the incapacity has
ceased,guardianship shall terminate.
The person previously declared
incompetent by the court,his guardian,
a relative or a friend may file the
petition to have his present competency
judicially determined.
The grounds for termination of
guardianship are as follows:
-the death of the guardian or of the
ward
-marriage or voluntary emancipation
(terminates guardianship only over the
person,not over the property of the
ward)
- adjudgment of competency(upon
finding that the ward is no longer
incompetent,guardianship ceases.)
The Petition
The petition shall be verified by oath
and shall state that such person is then
competent. Upon receiving the
petition,the court shall fix a time for
hearing the questions raised thereby
and shall cause reasonable notice to be
given to the guardian. The guardian or
relatives of the ward or any other
person,at the courts discretion,may
contest the right to the relief so
demanded.
 A guardian may be removed and
compelled to surrender the estate of the
ward to the person found to be lawfully
entitled thereto, if he:
-becomes insane,or otherwise
incapable of discharging his trust ,or
unsuitable therefor;
-has wasted or mismanaged the
estate
- or failed for 30 days after it is
due,to render an account or make a
return
A guardian may resign by filing a
petition for permission to resign his
trust,stating the grounds therefor,and
accompanied by a report of the state of
his account and an offer to settle the
account and deliver the estate over to
the court. The court shall then appoint
another guardian.
In re Guardianship of Incompetent Jose
de Inchausti
Facts:
In 1915,Maria de Inchausti was
appointed as guardian of the person and
property of her son,Jose on the ground
that he had become demented and
incapable of properly caring for himself
and his estate. Upon the advise of
physicians,he was sent to Barcelona
where he has continued to reside.
Subsequently, his friend,Manuel
Soler,filed a petition asking the court to
bring the guardianship to an end. Maria
opposed on the grounds that-
1.the ward had not been given
sufficient notice of the hearing;
2.it had not been satisfactorily shown
that he is now capable of taking care of
himself;
 The trial court overruled the
objections and adjudged the ward to be
of sound mind Evidence showed that
a cablegram was sent to notify Jose of
the hearing for the petition for his
restoration to capacity. The trial judge
held that notice had been given. Maria
appealed.
Held:
The court in which the
guardianship was pending already had
jurisdiction of the cause and the
parties;and notification to the ward is
required merely as an assurance that
the individual concerned shall have
cognizance of what is being done. It
at least gives him an opportunity to
advise the court in case action taken by
the mover of the petition was officious
or unauthorized. Messages were sent
and received by cable,affords sufficient
evidence that notification was duly
effected.
Evidence shows that at the time the
petition for his rehabilitation was
heard,the ward was in normal mental
state and had been in this condition for
a period sufficiently long enough to
justify the belief that he is permanently
restored. Under these circumstances,it
would be highly improper to prolong
the guardianship.
The opposition to the termination of
guardianship seems to be based chiefly
on the fear entertained by his mother
that Jose, if placed in control of the
large property to which he is heir,will
proved to be a spendthrift. Even if this
fear should be well-founded, it affords
no reason for maintaining a
guardianship which had its origin in his
mental incapacity. If he should
thereafter prove to be a
spendthrift,proper proceedings can be
instituted to protect him from wasteful
proclivities.But present mental capacity
being proved,he is entitled to be
discharged from tutelage.