GR No. L-47863 June 10, 1941 JOSE H. JUNQUERA, plaintiff and appellant, vs.. JOSE vain AQUILINO A.

Legaspi, and DU CHIN LLU, defendants and appellees. DIAZ, J.:

chanrob les virtual law library

The plaintiff was a minor whose record Guardianship opened in 1909 in Jusgado of First Instance of Cebu, under Registry No. 283 of the Jusgado, was closed by court order, the June 16, 1937. Until a few years before that date, the applicant was the owner, among other properties, the properties described in the register of Cebu, as lots Nos. 7864, 7865 and 7866, for which he had issued the original certificates of Title Nos. 2786 (Exhibit A), 2787 (Exhibit B) and 2788 (Exhibit C), respectively. His tutor was then the defendant Jose Vao sold the three properties mentioned, with judicial authorization, Thomas G. Ingalls first, that is the lot No. 7864, by the amount of P3, 750, January 27, 1927, and the defendant Aquilino A. Legaspi, at public auction, the last two, or are the lots Nos. 7865 and 7866, the amount of P4, 250, April 24, 1930. After having closed the record of his guardianship, and believing, and before closing it, which had sold those guardian by illegal means promoted, under the reservation that was granted by the Jusgado aforementioned order of 16 June 1937, this cause in the Jusgado of First Instance of Cebu to claim the same from its current holder Chin Du LLU is one of the defendants, who then sold Thomas G. Ingalls and Aquilino A. Legaspi, and to ask if its not possible to claim, were ordered to pay the defendant and Jose Vao the price of P10, 000 of the first (lot No. 7864), but P6, 000 in damages and damages, and also pay vain and Aquilino said Jose A. Legaspi the price of the last two (lots Nos. 7865 and 7866), which is P20, 00, more than P8, 700 in damages and interest. The jusgado, instead of giving the reason the claimant was acquitted of his case for the three defendants, without comment as to the filed. Against this decision of Jusgado, the applicant filed appeal, assigning errors to the same points in his argument in these terms: I. The court a quo erred in not declaring that the so-called "tutor" Mr. Jose vain, defendantappellee in this case, there was actually less then guardian of Mr. Jose H. Junquera, and by not declaring that the sr. Vao Jose had no legal capacity to sell the lot No. 7864 of the measurement ctastral of Cebu, said registered to Mr. Jose H. Junquera, original certificate of title No. 2786.
Chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

II. The court a quo erred in declaring that the Court of First Instance of Cebu had JURISDICTION competition and to authorize the sale of that lot number 7864, despite the obvious fala of compliance with legal requirements by Article 569 of the Code of Civil Procedure .
chanrob lesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

III. The court a quo erred in not declaring that Mr. Thomas G. Ingalls, who acted as attorney for the guardianship, had no legal capacity to be purchased bidder and sell the said lot number 7864.
Chanroblesvir tualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

IV. The court a quo erred in not declaring null and void the sale by the defendant Jose vain for his own lawyer, Mr. Thomas G. Ingalls and by not declaring that the Vao Jose is responsible for their behavior.
Chanroblesv irtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

V. The court a quo erred in not declaring that the Court of First Instance of Cebu acted without jurisdiction, to authorize and approve the sale of lots 7865 and 7866 numbers Cebu Cadastre, consisting positively that the pupil Jose H. Junquera and was of age, when requested and approved the sale of these two lots.
Chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

VI. The court a quo erred in not declaring that Jose Vao had no legal capacity to sell the lot numbers 7865 and 7866, and by not declaring that sales made by the defendant Jose Vao of three lots 7864, 7865 and 7866, are fraudulent.
chanrobles chanroblesv irtualawlibrary virtual law library

VII. The court a quo erred in not declaring that Jose Vao Epel acted in bad faith, and he is accountable for the damages incurred by the plaintiff-appellant.
Chanroblesv irtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

VIII. The court a quo erred in not declaring that the LLU Chin Du demandadi am working also in bad faith, and concimiento of all the circumstances surrounding the sale of goods of the plaintiff.
Chanroblesv irtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

IX. The court a quo erred in declaring that the rights of the plaintiff-appellant are already prescribed.
Chanrob lesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

X. The court a quo erred in declaring that the plaintiff is in estoppel.

Chanroblesvir tualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

chanrobles virtual law library

XI. The court a quo erred in not declaring that the plaintiff has a better right than Chin Du LLU. XII. The court a quo erred in denying the motion for rehearing. These are facts that can not be discussed because they consist of documents, which was named Jose Vao personay Guardian of the property of the plaintiff and appellant Jose H. Junquera, and took office as such, the month of December 1926, the bond prestandopreviamente P1, 000 that he had requested. (Exhibits 2 - 3 vain - vain). Barely a month later, presented in Epediente Guardianship of the appellant, his pupil, the motion of which is the relevant part that follows, to ask the court autorization necessary to sell the lot No. 7864, previously notified of the it to the guardian ad litem who had been appointed by the court, to defend the interests of the appellant: 1. I've Been Offered That P3, 650 cash for lot No. 7864, Belonging to the minor Jose H. Junquera, an area of 608 HAVING square meters;
chanrobles virtual law library

2. That the house On this lot is in ruins;

chanrobles virtual law library

3. That the rents at present From this property are P11.70 per month;

chanrobles virtual law library

4. That the guardian has no funds of said minor to rebuild said house;

chanrobles virtual law library

5. That it Would be to the best interest of said minor to accept That aforesaid offer and to lend the proceeds at interest;
chanrobles v irtual law library

6. That said the guardian considers offer of P3, 650 as reasonable and acceptable.

Chanroblesv irtualawlibrary

chanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore the Court is prayed to authorize the guardian to sell said property for not less Than P3, 650 cash.
Chanroblesv irtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Cebu. Cebu, PI, January 3rd., 1927, MCVFEAN & VICKERS By (Sgd.) JC VICKERS Attorneys for Guardian Mr. MANUEL. TRINIDAD Guardian ad litem Cebu, Cebu
chanrobles virtual law library

Sir: Please take notice That the foregoing motion Will Be Submitted to the Court on January 10th, 1927 at 8:00 a.m. MCVFEAN & VICKERS By (Sgd.) JC VICKERS Attorneys for Guardian Rec'd. Copy, Jan. 4, 1927. (Sgd.) MANUEL TRINIDAD Guardian ad litem (Exhibit 5 - Vao)
chanrobles virtual law library

Acting referred to the Court on motion, authorize ture Jose vain as the appellant, to sell the lot indicated at a price not less than P3, 650 (Exhibit 6 - Vao) and acting under the authorization was granted, the guardian he sold to Thomas G. Ingalls, with the consent of the guardian ad litem of the appellant, at a price higher than authorized: P3, 750, January 27, 1927 (Exhibit 8 - vain, and A), and his act was approved by the Court on 7 February, 1927. (Exhibit 9 - to no avail.) Then the appellant had 19 years, 5 months and 18 days, and hallba outside the Philippines, studying in Spain, where Elmes regresosino October 1933, being an adult and having 26 years compliments. The next day they bought the lot Ingalls question (No. 7864), sold for the sum of P4, 000 Du Chin appealed LLU (Exhibit A-1, P. de P.).
Chanroblesv irtualawlibrary virtual chanrobles law library

Jose vain, also had the permission of the court, sold at public auction, April 19, 1930, the last two batches, ie, Nos. 7865 and 7866, the amount of P4, 250 to Aquilino A. Legaspi (Exhibits 15 - 16 vain - vain). To obtain the authorization of the court to effect the sale of such lots, file a motion on March 20 of the said year, in which they allege these facts: 1. That the minor is at present in Need of funds for lodging, tuition fees, and other miscellanenous expenses, and the guardian Also NECESSARY Must pay legal expense;

chanrobles virtual law library

2. That the Remaining balance in hands of the guardian is only P517.12, Which is not Sufficient to cover the expen of the minor, for the Period from January, 1929, to December 31st, 1930
chanrobles virtual law library

3. That the minor has no other Income, except the small sums of money from the ground rents Received of lots No. 7865 and 7866, in the sum of about P12 per month;
chanrobles virtual law library

4. That the Guardian Has Been Offered P4, 134 cash for lots Nos. 7865 and 7866 of the Cebu Cadastral Survey, Original Certificates of Titles No. 2787 and 2788, total area of Having a 2.067 square meters, more or less;
chanrobles virtual law library

5. That by reason of the foregoing Circumstances, said the guardian considers offer of P4, 134 cash to be reasonable and acceptable, and is to the best interest of the minor;
chanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore, This Honorable Court is respectfully prayed to Authorized The Guardian, With The Approval of the curator ad litem to sell said lots Nos. 7865 and 7866 of the Cebu Cadastral Survey, Transfer of Titles Nos. Certiicate 2787 and 2788, in the sum of not Less Than P4, 134 cash.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Cebu, Cebu, PI, March 20, 1930. DONALD G. McVean AND THOMAS G. Ingalls By (Sgd.) THOSE G. Ingalls Attorneys for Guardian The cleark of the Court Will Please submit the foregoing motion on March 24, 1930, at 8:00 a.m.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary virtual law library chanrobles

Cebu, Cebu, PI, March 20, 1930. DONALD G. McVean AND THOMAS G. Ingalls By (Sgd.) THOSE G. Ingalls Attorneys for Guardian This is to certify That I Have Received a copy of the foregoing motion, This 22nd day of March, 1930. That the Same Consent Submitted on said date. (Sgd.) EUGENE RODIL Guardian ad litem of the Jose H. minor Junquera (Exhibit 12 - Vao)
chanrobles virtual law library

The authorization of the court required that the sale did on public auction to the highest bidder, and after publicationof corresponding ads, and all these requisitosse fulfilled to the letter, having made the pulicacion of those in the weekly Nasud of Cebu, which was of general circulation in the province and other provinces of Visaysa, and Mindanao. (Exhibit 16 - vain). Which is why the Court authorizes and directs Jose vain as in effect would grant awarded in favor of Aquilino A. Legaspi's deed of transfer, the day April 24, 1930. (Exhibit 18 - vain). Aldia having fallen below the authorization of the court and the guardian have been issued by the said deed of conveyance, or the April 25, 1930, Aquilino A. Legaspitraspaso turn these two lots, the amount of P7, 751.25, the appellee Chin Du LLU. (Exhibit B-1 and C-1 Test Pza). When this last transfer took place, the appellant was still absent in Spain, and was about to turn entoncesmuy its 23 years, and the proceeds from the sale of three lots of reference are invested in their own interest not reflected anywhere that Jose Vao has profited, or allowed others to profit from those sales.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

To determine if in fact committed by the court a quo that the appellant errors attributed in his plea, we must consider the facts that relate acabande.
Chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The absence of the appellant to be studying in the Philippines for Spain, upon sale of lot No. 7864, having then 19 years, 5 months and 18 days of age only, the fact that there was then still pending in the Court, on that same occasion, his Expdientede Guardianship, which was promoted by his mother en1909 when Openas was 2 years old (Exhibit D), and the other fact that Jose Vao guardian had acted and was as such not only by the (appellant), but also by the Court since being appointed to that position in December 1926 (Exhibit 2 - vain) to close the record referred to in 1937, borrowing before affairs office, the deposit of P1, 000 he had requested (Exhibit 3 Vao) clearly show that it was even necessary that was, and continues to be under guardianship, that Jose was the legitimate guardian Vao, and that this vendioel lot No. 7864 to Thomas G. Ingalls, in full conformity with the law previously obtaining the consent and authorization of the court, just to sell the said lot to give the deed of conveyance to grant, after having sold, and all this made the intervention, and the acquiescence and consent of the guardian ad litem for appellant. (Exhibit 5 - vain, 8 - and 9 Vao - vain).
Chanroblesvir tualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The omission of Jose Vao provide a special oath of office, which is fatal to the appellant, before entering upon the duties of his position as guardian if the omission may be called the failure to borrow such an oath, not stale or appointment may have been flawed, firstly because the law then in force is Law No. 190 does not in express terms require the provision of any oath of that class, and second, to formalize their bond to ensure that present an inventory of appellant's goods comosu ward; to administer and would have such property in accordance with law and for the benefit of the interest thereon, and would play its role faithfully taking care of the person and the education of the appellant, ready the only oath required by Article 556 of the Act, which reads:
chanrobles v irtual law library

All letters of guardianship Issue, and all guardians' bonds under the Executed Provisions of This chapter, together With The Oaths thereon, Must Be Recorded by the clerk of the Court of First Instance of the province and for Which the Within appointment is made.
Chanroblesv irtuala wlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The absence of the appellant of the Philippines in 1930 when the two lots Nos. 7865 and 7866 were sold in that year by the appellee Jose vain, strictly adapted to do so to the terms of the law

and a court order, also shows that yet have reached the appellant to the older, then it was already very close to fulfill, as said, its 23 years, could not dispense with a guardian or a person who managed and disposed of his property under judicial supervision , for their benefit, which was to continue Guardianship substantiated his record because he remained still open, and that hco on sales of three properties mentioned was the best, the wisest, and most could be beneficial to help the state and the circumstances in which time was.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On the other hand, can not be granted or ordered by the court, motu proprio, the closing or termination of a record of guardianship of a minor, but when so requested by the applicant, or without hearing him, or receiving some sort test to determine whether such a step should be or not, and certainly no evidence in the record that the appellant or anyone else in his place has done so, before consummation of the referred sales. Only asked and ordered the closing of the Record of Guardianship of the appellant, on the dates mentioned above. Article 575 of Law No. 190 contains on the particular arrangement THE FOLLOWING: The marriage of a minor ward Terminates the guardianship of the person of Such ward, but not of the estate, the guardian of an insane or other discharge May be by the court When It Appears, upon the application of the ward or Otherwise, That the No longer is NECESSARY guardianship. Article 569 of the Act No. 190 permits the sale by a guardian, upon court approval, of the assets of his ward, provided prior to the court explaining that knowing the record of his tutelage, the facts and circumstances demonstrating the necessity or desirability of such sale, with the purpose of this law, seek the greatest possible benefit to the ward. He fulfilled this provision of law, not walking Jose vain as guardian of the appellant, to sell any of the three batches of the property referred to the last, without informaral Court the necessity of selling them and sinantes hearing his guardian ad litem was appointed specifically to defend their interests and rights. Required notices were published for the information of the appellant pareintes and any others interested in the matter, and no evidence that someone has appeared to challenge such sales, being natural and logical to believe consquiente policies, is has no objection to the same , for otherwise, the court had not authorized their ventral. The law presumes that official duty has been duly fulfilled.
Chanroblesv irtualawlibrary library

chanrobles virtual law

Do not forget that Jose Vao moved that in the present to ask for court permission to sell the lot No. 7864, I submit these facts clearly: "2. That the house On this lot is in ruins, 3. That the rents From this property at are present P11.70 per month, 4. That the guardian has no funds of said minor to rebuild said house, 5. That it Would be to the best interest of said minor to accept the aforesaid offer and to lend the proceeds at interest " , and the motion presented to borrow the same authorization to sell the lots Nos. 7765 and 7866, said among other things, the following: "1. That the minor is at present in Need of funds for lodging, tuition fees, and other miscellaneous expenses, and the guardian Also Must Pay Legal Expenses NECESSARY 2. That the Remaining balance in hands of the guardian is only P517.12, Which is not Sufficient to cover the Expenses of the minor, for the Period from January, 1929 , to December 31st, 1930, 3. That the minor has no other Income, except the small sums of money from the ground rents Received Lots Nos. 7865 and of 7866, in the sum About P12 per month.
"virtual law library chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles

The appellant's proposition that the Court of First Instance of Cebu had no power to authorize the sale of any of the three mentioned properties, is untenable because, by law, a matter for the Courts of First Instance originally meet all special actions Matera and guardianship of all incidents related to them. The article 569de Act No. 190 expressly authorizes the Courts of First Instance, to allow the sale of property of a ward if circumstances so require and their needs, and if such a step would be in their benefit. Do not remove or stripped them of their competence, the fact that the request presents a guardian to request an authorization for that purpose, not this affidavit. It is not mandatory but facultative provisions of that article that says that applications be submitted to ask the Courts permission to sell some property of a minor who is under guardianship, should be sworn. The relevant text of that article is in this vein: ... guardian may submit to the judge or court that appointed a sworn petition stating the conditions of the ward's assets, and the facts and circumstances in which this is based, in order to demonstrate the necessity or desirability dela sale. ... It is certainly strange and even shocking that the sale by Thomas G. Lot No. 7864 Ingalls appealed Du Chin LLU to take place the day after having acquired it, and it is also weird and strange that the sale of lots Nos.7865 and 7866 by the appellee Aquilino A. The appellee Chin Du Legaspi LLU, in turn took place the day following the appellee has been granted judicial authorization Jose vain to grant the conveyance, and 5 days after the public auction that took place in that, but these facts, without other evidence, not by themselves justify the conclusion that the appellees acted with fraud, bad faith. Fraud and bad faith can not be presumed or inferred from single or isolated acts such as these, must be tested with some clarity, because among the various presumptions of law to be admitted as satisfactory without proof NEEDS, if not refuted, are the that private negotiations and fair Hanso them as usual, that of which we have followed the ordinary course of business, the facts that have occurred in the ordinary course of things and habits of life; and that every person is innocent of a crime or a fault or damage.
chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

But the deed executed by Thomas G. Ingalls, buying the lot No. 7864 on the date and circumstances mentioned above, the following day to resell at a higher amount in P250, is different in nature, not only shocking but also against the law openly, because BUY knew what he was buying property in which a child custody record as a lawyer intervened guardian. You can not dispute this fact, because he himself declared champions in his letter of April 24, 1930, filed an appellant's Guardianship, hoping the incident would emerge then promoted by the appellant, it follows: 1. That the undersigned attorneys Have ACTED as guardian for the proceedings since In This February, 1925, at Which time the said WAS estate valued at P11, 329.90. "Being that letter signed by" Donald G. McVean and Thomas G. Ingalls, by Thomas G. Ingalls, Attorneys for guardian "must be concluded that the Ingalls prepare yourself, and you know it's true everything there said. Well, well: Article 1945 of the Civil Code contains the following prohibition: May not acquire by purchase, even in public or judicial subst whether intermediate or by any person:

chanrobles

xxxxxxxxx

virtual law library

5. The magistrates, judges, individuals, the public prosecutor, courts and tribunals Secretaries and Officers of Justice, the assets and rights that were in litigation before the Court, whose jurisdiction or territory to exercise their respective functions, extend this prohibition to the act to acquire by assignment.
chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Exceptions to this rule concerned the case of actions against heirs inherited, or decision in payment of credit, or guarantee of property they own.
Chanroblesv irtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The prohibition contained in this num. 5. Comprise Counsel and Attorneys for the goods and rights that are the subject of a dispute involving its professions and trades. Ingalls is certainly not part inthis case, journalists being a lawyer, should the Court an explanation of his conduct in separate file.
Chanroblesvirtua lawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

After what has been said here, the conclusion reached are unfounded esque first eight errors attributed by the appellant to the court a quo. The last result being but four of those, not important and there is no need to go into more considerations regarding the same.
Chanrob lesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Under all the facts and all the considerations presented above, we uphold the ruling appealed the court a quo, sentencing the appellant to pay costs.
Chanroblesvir tualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

With respect to attorney Thomas G. Ingalls, directed that a copy of this decision to the Attorney General, in accordance with the new regulations, practice and take the necessary research if appropriate disciplinary action against that attorney, bad practices in the exercise of their profession. So ordered.
Chanrob lesvirtualaw library chanrobles virtual law library