1. Nery v. Lorenzo G.R. No. L-23096.

April 27, 1972

SYLLABUS

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; GUARDIANSHIP; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO

MINORS ABOVE 14 YEARS OF AGE, FAILURE THEREOF INFORMS SALE OF THEIR
PROPERTY. — Where the guardianship proceeding was heard without the two elder of
four minor children being noti􀀽ed although said two were then more than 14 years of
age, the sale by their guardian of a property belonging to the minors and their guardian,
even if authorized by the probate court, may be impugned. The jurisdictional infirmity of
such lack of notice to the 14 year old minors was too patent to be overcome.

Facts:

The mother-widow-guardian of the 4 kids 2 of which are 14 years of age and older, sold a
4 hectare property belonging to the minor. The minor challenges the validity of such sale
contending that the order of the probate court authorizing the sale could be impugned
because the failure to notify the other 2 kids over 14 years old are jurisdictional issue. The
lower court held that the aforesaid ¼ portion of the property is declared co-owned by the
Spouses-vendee with the Ferrer and the sale by the mother-widow-guardian being
considered void.

The vendee spouses elevated the issue to the CA to declare valid the deed of sale
executed by the mother-widow-guardian for the whole ¾ hectares, without prejudice to the
right of the children to demand from their mother their share of that sold property.

CA ruled in favor of the vendee spouses overturning the decision of the lower court. The
vendee-spouses were declared buyers in good faith insofar as the ½ of the ¾ of the 4
hectare property. Both partied moved for MR to the CA’s decision.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in authorizing the sale without notice for all minors over 14
years of age.

Held: Yes, the CA erred in authorizing the sale without notice to all 2 minors over 14 years
of age.
When a petition for the appointment of a general guardian is filed, the court shall fix a time
and place for hearing the same, and shall cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to
the persons mentioned in the petition residing in the province, including the minor if above
14 years of age or the incompetent himself, and may direct other general or special notice
thereof to be given." The jurisdictional infirmity was too patent to be overcome. It was the
lower court that acted correctly.
Moreover, where minors are involved, the State acts as parens patriae. To it is cast the
duty of protecting the rights of persons or individual who because of age or incapacity are
in an unfavorable position, vis-a-vis other parties.

2. Francisco v. CA G.R. No. L-57438. January 31, 1984

Facts: (P) duly appointed guardian of incompetent Estefania in SPECPRO case in RTC.
(R) filed a petition for the removal of the (P) and appointment of (R) for the failure of the (P)
as guardian to submit inventory of the estate of his ward. (P) was able to comply with
inventory and accounting but was late. (R) filed an objection claiming that the inventory
was under short for 2000.00 as proceeds from the sale of real property belonging to the
ward. The lower court find for the (R) as guardian, relieving (P).

(P) filed MR but was denied assigning (R) as the guardian of the property of the
incompetent. (P) appealed to CA but CA dismissed the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in relieving the (P) as guardian of the ward because of
old age.

Held: No, CA did not erred in relieving (P) as guardian of the incompetent.

A guardian, once appointed may be removed in case he becomes insane or otherwise

incapable of discharging his trust or unsuitable therefor, or has wasted or mismanaged the
estate, or failed for thirty (30) days after it is due to render an account or make a return.
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 controlling criterion in
determining a person's fitness or qualification to be appointed or be retained as guardian, it
may be a factor for consideration.

3. Uy v. CA G.R. No. 109557. November 29, 2000\

Synopsis

Petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza instituted before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo a petition to
declare her husband Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. incapacitated, in view his comatose condition,
and to authorize her to assume sole powers of administration of their conjugal properties
and to dispose the same, with the approval of the court, to their daughter and son-in-law,
her co-petitioners herein, to defray the mounting expenses for treatment and
hospitalization of her incapacitated husband. After hearing, the RTC granted the petition
and made a pronouncement that the petition filed by petitioner was pursuant to Article
124 of the Family Code, and that the proceedings thereon are governed by the rules on
summary proceedings sanctioned under Article 253 of the same Code. Private respondent,
son of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. moved for reconsideration contending, among others, that
the rules governing special proceedings in the Revised Rules of Court should be followed.
The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of
the trial court and declared void the special proceedings instituted therein by petitioners
ruling that the proper remedy was the appointment of a judicial guardian of the person or
estate or both of such incompetent, under Rule 93, Section 1, 1964 Revised Rules of
Court.

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
nonconsenting 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
semicomatose 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.

Even assuming that the rules of summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code may
apply to the wife's administration of the conjugal property, the law provides that the wife
who assumes sole powers of administration has the same powers and duties as a
guardian under the 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 of the 1964 Revised
Rules of Court, not the summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code.

SYLLABUS
1. FAMILY CODE; ADMINISTRATION OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY;
RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE FAMILY CODE NOT APPLICABLE
TO CASES WHERE THE NON-CONSENTING SPOUSE IS INCAPACITATED OR
INCOMPETENT TO GIVE CONSENT; PROPER REMEDY IS JUDICIAL GUARDIANSHIP
PROCEEDINGS. — 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 nonconsenting 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 semicomatose 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.

2. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; GUARDIANSHIP; PROCEDURE FOR

THE SALE OF WARD'S ESTATE REQUIRED OF JUDICIAL GUARDIANS MUST BE
OBSERVED BY A SPOUSE WHO DESIRES TO DISPOSE OF THEIR CONJUGAL
PROPERTY AS SOLE ADMINISTRATOR THEREOF. — Even assuming that the rules of
summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code may apply to the wife's
administration of the conjugal property, the law provides that the wife who assumes sole
powers of administration has the same powers and duties as a guardian under the 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.

Facts:
(PR) filed a petition for guardianship of his father currently comatose and the letter of
guardianship be issued to (PR) mother the (P).

Few days later, (P) filed a SpecPro for the declaration of incapacity of her husband and the
assumption of sole powers of administration of the conjugal properties and authorization to
sell Lot 4291. The court finds for the (P) and authorized the sale and declared the husband
incapacitated to participate in the administration of their conjugal properties. The court
made their decision pursuant to Article 124 of the Family Code.
(PR) filed its opposition unaware that a decision has already been rendered. PR filed MR
and motion for consolidation of the two cases.

CA promulgated their decision reversing the appealed decision declaring the sale void.\

Issue: Whether the (P) wife 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 the
approval of the court in a summary proceeding.

Held: No. 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 nonconsenting 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 semicomatose 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. Even assuming that the rules of summary judicial
proceedings under the Family Code may apply to the wife's administration of the conjugal
property, the law provides that the wife who assumes sole powers of administration has
the same powers and duties as a guardian under the 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.
In the case at bar, the trial court did not comply with the procedure under the
Revised Rules of Court. Indeed, the trial court did not even observe the requirements of
the summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code. Thus, the trial court did not
serve notice of the petition to the incapacitated spouse; it did not require him to show
cause why the petition should not be granted.

4. Baluyut v. Luciano G.R. No. L-42215. July 13, 1976

Synopsis

In the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, probate proceeding for the settlement of the
estate of the deceased Sotero Baluyut was instituted by his alleged nephew, Alfredo
Baluyut claiming mental incapacity of the surviving widow, Encarnacion vda. de Baluyut, to
administer her affairs and that of the decedent's estate. He prayed for appointment as
administrator. However, upon a counter petition, the widow was appointed administratrix
and qualified as such. This appointment, was set aside by the Supreme Court in Baluyut
vs. Judge Paño, etc., G.R. L-42088, May 7, 1976, because the persons contesting her
capacity to act were not given an adequate opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence.

Meantime, in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, two successive
petitions were filed to declare Mrs. Baluyut an incompetent and to place her under
guardianship. The first petition, which was 􀀽led by Alfredo Baluyut, was dismissed. The
second, which was filed by her sisters, were given due course. Acting on the latter petition,
the court summarily declared the widow as incompetent on the basis of a report of a
psychiatrist who was not cross-examined, and without hearing the evidence of the parties,
particularly Mrs. Baluyut. The court denied a motion for reconsideration of the order
making such declaration.

On a petition to review the order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relation Court, the
Supreme Court held that in consonance with the last sentence of section 29-A of the
Charter of Quezon City, the guardianship proceeding should be suspended and should
await the jurisdiction of the issue of petitioner's competency to act as administratrix
pending with the probate court. The Court further held that the procedure laid down in
Rule 93 of the Rules of Court for appointment of guardians as to the time and place for
hearing, wherein the evidence of the parties in support of their respective allegations
should be heard and the giving of the required notice, should have been adhered to strictly
by the lower court.

Questioned orders set aside.