BONDS OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATOR
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
LSPU College of Law
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.