#rule93

[call-me-catalysis]

RULE 93 Sections 7-8 APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS

Section 7.Parents as Guardians 

—This provision may be deemed to have been modified by the provisions of the Family Code on Guardianship particularly Articles 225 and 220. 

Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with respect to their unemancipated children or wards the following rights and duties: 1.To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means; 

2.To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding;

3.To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;

4.To enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their physical and mental health at all times; 

5. To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals;

6. To present them in all matters affecting their interests;

7. To demand from them respect and obedience;

8. To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and

9. To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians.

Art. 225. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of their unemancipated common child without the necessity of a Court appointment. In case of disagreement, the father’s decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary. 

—Where the market value of the property or the annual income of the child exceeds P50,000, the parent concerned shall be required to furnish a bond in such amount as the Court may determine, but not less than 10% of the value of their property or annual income. 

—A verified petition for approval of the bond shall be filed in the proper Court of the place where the child resides, or if the child resides in a foreign country, in the proper court of the place where the property or any part thereof is situated. 

Natural Guardian Cannot Dispose the Property of the Child 

 —A father or mother, as the natural guardian of the minor under parental authority, does not have the power to dispose or encumber the property of the latter, such power is granted by law only to a judicial guardian of the ward’s property and even then only with Court’s prior approval secured in accordance with the proceedings set forth by the Rules of Court.

Remedy Against the Guardian who Disposed of the Property

—Vendee’s remedy against the natural guardian is not to recover ownership and possession of the properties sold but only to recover damages.

Section 8. Service of Judgment

—Civil Registrar of the place where the minor or incompetent resides or where the property is situated shall be served with a copy of judgment.

[call-me-catalysis]

G.R. No. L-4155 December 17, 1952 In the matter of guardianship of FERNANDO, FRANCISCA, RAFAEL and MARIA CANDELARIA, all surnamed BAUTISTA, minors. FELISA PANGILINAN VDA. DE BAUTISTA, guardian. UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, oppositor-appellee, vs. ADELA BUSTOS, claimant-appellant.

Claro M. Recto for appellant. Chief Attorney Douglas M. Morrill, Acting Chief Attorney M. Lee and Attorney Glicerio Opinion, Jr., for appellee.

LABRADOR, J.:

Special proceedings No. 7688 of the Court of First Instance of Manila is the proceeding for the guardianship of the minors Fernando, Francisca, Rafael and Maria Candelaria, all surnamed Bautista, instituted in said court on March 17, 1949. The People's Bank and Trust Company is the guardian appointed by the court of their properties, and Felisa Pangilinan Vda. de Bautista, the mother of the minors, of their persons. Letters of guardianship were issued to the above-mentioned bank on April 27, 1949; the record does not disclose when the corresponding letters were issued to the minors' mother.

On December 13, 1949, the minors' mother signed a document entitled "Deed of Loan" (Annex A), wherein she declares having borrowed and received from Adela Bustos, for the support of her minor children, rice, clothing and money from May 3, 1945, to January 1, 1949, by way of loan, with a total value of P6,525, which "will be paid in full in favor of Miss Bustos . . . as soon as the claim for pension in favor of the above-named six children shall have been approved and received." On February 28, 1950, Adela Bustos filed a claim in the special proceedings for the total sum of P6,525 on the basis of the above-described "Deed of Loan", alleging that the expenses for the maintenance and education of the wards during the period from May 3, 1945, to January 1, 1949, were shouldered and advanced by the claimant, as evidenced by said "Deed of Loan". Opposition to this claim was filed by the U.S. Veterans Administration. Without any evidence having been offered or submitted, the court disallowed the claim, and against this disallowance an appeal has been taken directly to this court.

The gist of claimant's appeal is that the minors' mother was the de facto guardian of the minors' properties, and may, therefore, validity encumber the same for "necessaries" furnished said minors for their support, and that equity and justice demand that as the minors benefited from the loan technicalities should be brushed aside and the claim paid.

Neither the arguments of claimant-appellant nor the authorities cited by her in support thereof can apply to the facts of the case at bar. The minors' mother was their natural guardian, entitled to their custody and care and responsible for their education, but such guardianship did not extend to their properties. (Section 553, Code of Civil Procedure; Palet vs. Aldecoa & Co., 15 Phil. 232; Gayondato vs. Treasurer of the Philippine Islands, 49 Phil., 236.) She was not a de facto guardian; her acts were made as mother of the children, not as a de facto guardian. It is further to be noted that the claim is predicted exclusively on the "Deed of Loan", which was executed even after the judicial guardian of the minors' properties had already been appointed and after she had also been appointed judicial guardian of their persons, for supposed expenses prior to the institution of the guardianship proceedings. No evidence was offered to prove that the necessaries mentioned in the deed of loan were actually given and were actually used or spent for the minors. The deed of loan itself is not sufficient to prove the above facts or competent as against the minors.

Assuming, arguendo, that the mother and her natural children secured loans from claimant-appellant with which to purchase the food, clothing, and necessaries of her minors wards or to provide them with education, she certainly has no power nor authority to encumber the property of the wards to guaranty the loan thus secured, or to bind for the payment of the loan the pensions that the minors may be entitled to receive thereafter. Only a judicial guardian of the ward's property may validly do so, and even then only with the courts prior approval secured in accordance with the proceedings set forth by the rules. (Rules 96, Rules of Court.) The execution of the "Deed of Loan" in the case at bar is, therefore, clearly beyond the scope of a natural guardian's power or authority.

The authorities cited are beside the issue. They refer to contracts for the purchase of necessaries entered into by judicial guardians, not by natural guardians, or to allowances paid to them (judicial guardians) for necessaries supplied or purchased for the ward. These questions, entirely different and distinct from the issue involved in the case at bar, we are not asked to decide. Assuming, without deciding, that the minors herein should be made to pay for the necessaries furnished them before their pension was approved, and that justice supports claimant's demand because she furnished such necessaries, the appropriate remedy to enforce their liability is not through the written promise that their natural guardian made.

The appeal must be, as it hereby is, dismissed, with costs against the claimant-appellant.

[call-me-catalysis]

In the Matter of Guardianship of Fernando, Francisca, Rafael, and Maria Candelaria, all surnamed Bautista, minors. Felisa Pangilinan Vda. De Bautista vs Adela Bustos G.R. No. L-4155                 December 17, 1952

Labrador, J.:

 FACTS:

This is a proceeding for guardianship of the minors: Fernando, Francisca, Rafael and Maria Candelaria, all surnamed Bautista.

The People’s Bank and Trust Company was appointed by the Court as guardian of their properties, while Felisa Pangilinan Vda. De Bautista, the mother of the minors, of their persons. Letters of guardianship were issued to the said bank, while there was no mention of letters of guardianship were issued to the minor’s mother.

On December 13, 1949, Felisa signed a document entitled “Deed of Loan” wherein she declared having borrowed and received from Adela Bustos, for the support of her minor children, the rice, clothing, and money, by way of loan with a total value of P6,525 which will be paid in full in favor of Adela.

On February 28, 1950, Adela filed a claim for the sum of P6,525 on the basis of said loan, alleging that the expenses for the maintenance and education of the wards were shouldered and advanced by the claimant.

The US Veterans Administration filed an opposition to the claim. Without any evidence having been offered or submitted, the Court disallowed the claim. Hence, this appeal.

 ISSUE:  

Whether or not Felisa Pangilinan Vda. De Bautista, the mother of the minors, has the power to dispose the property of the minors.

  HELD:

No. the minor’s mother was their natural guardian, entitled to their custody and care and responsible for their education, but such guardianship did not extend to their properties.

It is further to be noted that the claim is predicated exclusively on the Deed of Loan, which was executed even after the judicial guardian of the minor’s properties had already been appointed and after she had also been appointed judicial guardian of their persons, for supposed expenses prior to the institution of the guardianship proceedings.

Likewise, no evidence was offered to prove that the necessaries mentioned in the Deed of Loan were actually given and were actually used or spent for the minors. The deed of loan itself is not sufficient to prove the above facts or competent as against the minors.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed.