Spec Pro Class 2020

Facts:

On March 8, 1946, Don Mariano Cui, widower, sold his three lots to three of his children (Rosario, Mercedes and Antonio), pro indiviso. However, Rosario failed to pay so the sale to her was cancelled and the 1/3 of the property was returned to the vendor. As a result, Don Mariano, Mercedes and Antonio became co-owners of the property. Sometime after the sale, Mercedes and Antonio applied for a loan, secured by a mortgage on the three lots, to construct a commercial building. The building was eventually constructed.

Two years later, two other children of Don Mariano Cui brought an action for the annulment of the deed of sale of the three lots on the ground that they belonged to the conjugal partnership of Don Mariano and his deceased wife.

On March 19, 1949 Rosario filed a petition to declare her father incompetent and to have a guardian appointed for his property. The petition was granted on May 1949 and Victorino Reyes was appointed as guardian of the property.

 

On, June 15, 1949 guardian Victorino Reyes filed a motion in the guardianship proceedings seeking authority to collect the rentals from the three lots in question and asking the Court to order Antonio and Mercedes to deliver to him as guardian all the rentals they had previously collected from the 12-door commercial building, together with all the papers belonging to his ward.

On September 5, 1991 Judge Edmundo S. Piccio granted the second motion of Victorino Reyes. Antonio and Mercedes filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in an order dated October 1, 1951.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent Judge had jurisdiction to issue the order of September 5, 1951 directing the petitioners herein to deliver to the guardian Victorino Reynes the rentals collected by them from the building and authorizing said guardian to collect future rentals.

​

Ruling:

No. Under Sec 6 of Rule 97, the ward may ask the guardian court to deliver an actual or prospective interest which was owned by the ward, and was embezzled, concealed, or conveyed by another. In the case at hand, Sec 6 of Rule 97 does not apply, since the rental payments Is still a subject of controversy, as to who really owns such payments. This must be litigated in an ordinary civil action, to which a guardian court does not have jurisdiction.

​

Where title to any property said to be embezzled, concealed or conveyed is in question as in the present case, the determination of said title or right whether in favor of the ward or in favor of the persons said to have embezzled, concealed or conveyed the property must be determined in a separate ordinary action and not in guardianship proceedings.

​

Hence, the respondent Judge had no jurisdiction to issue his order of September 5, 1951, in the guardianship proceedings requiring the petitioners to deliver the rentals collected by them to the guardian and authorizing the latter to collect rentals in the future, for the reason that the jurisdiction of the court guardianship proceedings, ordinarily, is to cite persons suspected of having embezzled, concealed or conveyed property belonging to the ward for the purpose of obtaining information which may be used in an action later to be instituted by the guardian to protect the right of the ward; and that only in extreme cases, where property clearly belongs to the ward or where his title thereto has already been judicially decided, may the court direct its delivery to the guardian.