Romina M.

Lozande
Presenter
Guardianship( Rules 92-97)
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 a 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 in court; 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)
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

The legal guardian only has the plenary power of

administration of the minor’s (or incompetent’s) property.
It does not include the power of alienation which needs
judicial authority. A guardian has no authority to sell real
estate of the ward by reason of his general powers and in
the absence of any special authority to sell conferred by
will, statute or order of court. A sale of the ward’s realty
of guardian without authority is void.
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.
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 by 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. 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.
References:
Claridades, A.(2017). Special Proceedings: An exhaustive
exposition.Central Book Supply, Inc.
De leon,M. and Wilwayco, D.(2015). Special Proceedings,
Essentials for Bench and Bar. Rex Book Store.
https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_03_04_04_sc
_2003
.
http://republicact.com/docs/statute/421/am-03-02-05-sc
-rule-on-guardianship-minors
Thank you for
listening!