Case # 5: Salvador Guerrero, guardian of minors Maria Manuela and Maria Teran appealed the decision and alleged
decision and alleged that the trial court erred in ruling
del Carmen Sanchez Munoz (plaintiff) v. Leopoldo Teran (defendant) (March
1909)
Doctrine:
Estates; Responsibility of administrators and guardians. The administrator of an
estate belonging to minors is liable for the management of their interests therein
from the time of his acceptance of the appointment until his removal or release. If
such administrator has, in the meantime, permitted other persons to intervene in
the management, the responsibility for their acts fall upon him. The administrator
however, may have a right of action against such person for any loss occasioned by
their negligence or corruption.
Appointment of resident administrators and guardians. There is no law in force
which requires courts to appoint residents only as administrators or guardians. No
person, however, should be appointed as guardian or administrator who is not
subject to the jurisdiction of the court making the appointment.
Facts:
On March 1908, Salvador Guerrero commenced an action against Leopoldo Teran
to recover the sum of P4,129.56. This amount was claimed by Guerrero to Teran
upon the theory that the latter had been the administrator of the estate of Antonio
Sanchez Munoz from September 1901 to October 1906. Guerrero made a part of
his complaint a number of items of Terans debt, amounting to a total of
P12,388.72. In his Answer, Teran admitted certain allegations and denied others.
After hearing the evidences adduced during the trial of the said case, the
lower court found that Teran, as administrator of the estate of Antonio Sanchez
Munoz, owed to Guerrero the sum of P3,447.46 with interest at 6% until the same
should be fully paid.
that he managed and administered the estate of Antonio Sanchez Munoz as judicial
administrator and executor. Moreover, he denied being responsible to Guerrero for
the loans made to different persons for different accounts and for credits against the
persons mentioned in the complaint.
Upon examination of records, it was discovered that Teran was in fact
appointed administrator of the subject estate. However, on March 1902, the Court
of First Instance of Albay appointed Maria Munoz Gomez (Munoz-Gomez) as
guardian of Maria Manuela and Maria Sanchez Munoz and that Munoz-Gomez
gave the required bond for the faithful performance of her duties as guardian.
Further, while there are indications in the record that Teran continued to act
as administrator of the estate after appointment of Munoz-Gomez, the fact exists
that the latter was the actual representative of Maria Manuela and Maria Sanchez
Munoz in the administration of their interests in the estate of the said Antonio
Sanchez Munoz. Therefore, Munoz-Gomez, as guardian and administratix of the
estate of the said minors, must be held responsible of the property belonging to the
said minors during the period she was their actual guardian.
However, on October 6, 1906, the CFI of Albay removed her as guardian for
the reason that Munoz-Gomez was not a resident of the Philippine Islands at the
time of her appointment. The court then removed her as guardian and appointed
Feliz Samson as provisional guardian with the required bond of P2,000.00.
Issue[s]:
(1) Whether or not Teran, the former appointed guardian and administrator of the
minors estate, is liable for all the debts incurred of the estate from March 1902 to
October 1906 when Munoz-Gomez was appointed as the actual administrator?
(2) Whether or not Maria Munoz appointment was void because she did not reside
in the Philippine islands at the time of her appointment as the guardian.
Court Ruling:

(a) Whether or not Teran, the former appointed guardian and administrator of the
minors estate, is liable for the debts incurred of the estate from March 1902 to
October 1906 when Munoz-Gomez was appointed as the actual administrator?

The Court ruled that Teran is NOT liable. If any loss occurred to herein petitioner
from March 1902 to October 1906, the period wherein Munoz-Gomez was
appointed administrator, he has a right of action only against Munoz-Gomez as the
appointed legal guardian under the law and the administratix of the property of
their estate.
The administrator of an estate belonging to minors is liable for the
management of their interests therein from the time of his acceptance of the
appointment until his removal or release. If such administrator has, in the
meantime, permitted other persons to intervene in the management, the
responsibility for their acts fall upon him.

(b) Whether or not Maria Munoz appointment was void because she did not reside
in the Philippine islands at the time of her appointment as the guardian.

While there is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint
residents only as administrators or guardians; however, the courts, charged with the
responsibility of protecting the estates of the deceased persons, wards of the estate,
will find much difficulty in complying with this duty by appointing administrators
and guardians who are not personally subject to their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding
the lack of statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to the appointment
of persons as administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to the
jurisdiction of the court.