A.

Escheat

G.R. No. L-45460 February 25, 1938 THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, ET AL.,
applicants-appellants, vs. COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE, INC., ET AL., oppositors-appellees.

G.R. No. 143483 January 31, 2002, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF PASAY CITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER 3RD DIVISION)
AND AMADA H. SOLANO, assisted by her husband ROMEO SOLANO, respondents.

G.R. No. L-30381 August 30, 1988 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XIII, HON. JESUS P. MORFE, PRESIDING JUDGE, AND PRES.
ROXAS RURAL BANK INC., respondents.

B. Guardianship Of incompetents (Rules 92-97)

1. G.R. No. 445. March 31, 1902. PEDRO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRANCISCO
MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

Pedro Martinez Ilustre, plaintiff and appellant

Francisco Martinez, defendant and appellee

FACTS:

Pedro Martinez Ilustre filed for an appeal before the SC after the CFI dismissed his petition to declare his
father, Francisco Martinez, a prodigal. Pedro claimed that due to his father's advanced age, he no longer had
control of his mental faculties and that he was squandering his wealth by giving it away to his second wife.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Francisco Martinez is a prodigal.

HELD:

No. Prodigality cannot be determined in objective terms. Rather, it can only be inferred when a person's acts
show a morbid state of mind and a disposition to spend, waste, and lessen the estate to such an extent as is
likely to expose the family to want of support.

In the case at hand, Francisco Martinez was deduced by the court of having full control of his mind: he still
managed to earn a profit and no transfer of property was found in the record of public deeds. In fact, the
entire proceeding was rooted in Francisco's revocation of the power of attorney awarded to his son Pedro to
manage his estate after the latter was found to have a propensity to be a prodigal himself.

---
Rule 92, Section 2, Rules of Court: "wanton waste of one's estate; without regard for family, exposing them to
want and depriving inheritance; morbid state of mind and disposition to spend"

2. [ G.R. No. 45121. May 31, 1939 ] IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THE
INCOMPETENT EULALIO LOPEZ. DEMETRIO GAMBOA, GUARDIAN AND APPELLEE, VS.
SERAFIN GAMBOA, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.
FACTS: The guardianship of the incompetent Eulalio Lopez has been the owner long before the year
1932 of the hacienda known as "Makamig." In 1934 it was leased for three years beginning with the
1932-1933 crop year to Glicerio Montinola. 

As the guardianship was in need of funds to meet certain unpaid obligations, the guardian petitioned
and obtained from the CFI which had control of the guardianship proceedings, authority to negotiate
a loan which may not exceed P3,000, encumbering therefor by way of second mortgage the hacienda
aforementioned which was at the time already subject to a previous one in favor of the spouses
Albino Jison and Dolores Lopez de Jison.

Acting thereafter in accordance with the authority which had been granted him, the guardian
obtained a loan of P2,500 from Serafin Gamboa, his own brother. Five days later, the guardian
leased the hacienda in question to Serafin Gamboa himself from whom he had obtained he loan of
P2,500.

Having been informed of the new lease, the prior lessee, Glicerio Montinola, filed with the court on a
motion praying that he be allowed to continue leasing the hacienda for another three years, alleging
that he had invested therein sufficient money to improve it and proposing conditions which, he
believed, were better than those offered by Serafin Gamboa. o influence the court further in his
favor, he made it understand that if the guardian had given the aforesaid new lease to Serafin
Gamboa it was because the latter is the former’s brother.

The court resolving the question as presented by the guardian, Gonzalo Junsay and Serafin Gamboa,
directed through its order of October 17, 1935 that the lease be awarded to Gonzalo Junsay; and it
found at the same time that the contract of lease executed by the guardian in favor of Serafin
Gamboa was invalid because it was not approved by it.

ISSUE: Is the contract of lease of the hacienda in question entered into between the guardian of the
incompetent Eulalio Lopez and Serafin Gamboa, valid, efficacious and, therefore, binding on the
parties by whom it was executed?

HELD: Contracts are presumed valid until they are declared to be otherwise; and this can
only be done by bringing an ordinary action in a separate case wherein the question may be
determined because Chapter XXVII of Act No. 190 dealing with guardianships, does not confer
authority on the court to concern itself therewith or, more exactly, to decide it.

Since the contract of lease entered into between the guardian and the appellant Serafin Gamboa is
valid as we have held, it was improper to accept the offer of Gonzalo Junsay, which was only made
nine months after said contract was perfected and more than one month after it was recorded in the
registry of property. This is the more evident when it is remembered that the appellant was already
then in possession of several portions of the leased hacienda, even if the fact that the contract was
recorded in the registry of property

3. [ GR No. L-8488, Nov 21, 1955 ] IN RE GUARDIAN OF JOSEFA PONCE v. JOSE PONCE

4. G.R. No. L-8477. May 31, 1956.] THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as Guardian of the
Property of the minor, MARIANO L. BERNARDO, Petitioner, vs. SOCORRO ROLDAN,
FRANCISCO HERMOSO, FIDEL C. RAMOS and EMILIO CRUZ, Respondents.
 5. [G.R. No. 46947. January 20, 1940.] JEREMIAS MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE ALEJO
LABRADOR, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, DOMINADOR CHIPECO, Provincial
Sheriff of Laguna, and ENRIQUE BAUTISTA, Respondents.

6. [ G.R. No. L-27402. July 25, 1981 ] GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT LEONORA
NAVARRO AND THE MINORS ADOLFO YUSON AND OTHERS, ELDEGARDES YUSON DE
PUA, JUDICIAL GUARDIAN-APPELLANT, VS. JUSTINIANO SAN AGUSTIN, MOVANT-
APPELLEE.

7. [ G.R. No. 15119. January 19, 1920 ] IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT JOSE R.
DE INCHAUSTI, MARIA CONSUELO RICO VDA. DE INCHAUSTI, PETITIONER AND
APPELLANT, VS. MANUEL SOLER, OPPONENT AND APPELLEE.

C. A.M. NO. 03-02-05-SC [MAY 01, 2003] Guardianship of minors Read pertinent provisions of the
Family Code

D. Rule on Custody of Minors and writ of habeas corpus in relation to custody of minors A.M. No. 03-04-
04-SC April 22, 2003

1. G.R. No. 154598 August 16, 2004 IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS RICHARD BRIAN THORNTON for and in behalf of the minor
child SEQUEIRA JENNIFER DELLE FRANCISCO THORNTON, petitioner, vs. ADELFA
FRANCISCO THORNTON, respondent.

2. G.R. No. 159374 July 12, 2007 FELIPE N. MADRIÑAN, Petitioner, vs. FRANCISCA R.
MADRIÑAN, Respondent.

3. G.R. No. 164915 March 10, 2006 ERIC JONATHAN YU, Petitioner, vs. CAROLINE T. YU,
Respondent.

4. Masbate, et al. Vs. Relucio, G.R. No. 235498, July 30, 2018

5. G.R. No. 210636 July 28, 2014 MA. HAZELINA A. TUJANMILITANTE IN BEHALF OF THE
MINOR CRISELDA M. CADA, Petitioner, vs. RAQUEL M. CADA-DEAPERA, Respondent.