Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

Feliciano Francisco was the duly appointed guardian of Steffania San Pedro while Pelagio Francisco claimed that he was a first cousin of Steffania.

Pelagio seeked the removal of Feliciano as the guardian and based his petition upon the failure of Feliciano to submit an inventory and account of the properties of the ward.

 

Subsequent to this, Feliciano Francisco submitted the inventory and account but it was alleged by Pelagio that Feliciano sold a lot of Steffanid for 14 thousand but only 12 thousand was recorded on the inventory, Because of this, Feliciano was removed as the guardian of Staffania but later on his orser was reconsidered but still, Feliciano was still removed but this time, by reason of old age.

 

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that he was only 72 years of age and still fit to continue with the management of the estate of his ward as he had done with zeal for the past twelve years. In an order dated November 13, 1980 the court denied his motion.

 

The court a quo appointed respondent Pelagio Francisco as the new guardian of the person and property of the incompetent Estefania San Pedro.

 

On March 13, 1981, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari challenging the validity of the order of the trial court granting the execution pending appeal of its decision and appointing respondent Pelagio Francisco as the new guardian despite the fact that respondent is five (5) years older than petitioner.

 

CA dismissed the petition and held that “in the case at bar, the retirement of petitioner was ordered on the ground of old age. When this ground is considered in relation to the delay of the petitioner in the making of an accounting and the submission of an inventory, the order amounts to a finding that petitioner, considering his "rather advanced age," was no longer capable of managing the estate of his ward. . Given this finding, it is clear that petitioner's continuance in office would not be in the best interest of the ward.

​

Issues:

Whether “old age” as a ground for removing a guardian constitutes a good ground for the execution of the decision pending appeal?

 

Ruling:

Upon urgent and compelling reasons, execution pending appeal is a matter of sound discretion on the part of the trial court and the appellate court will not interfere, control or inquire into the exercise of this discretion unless there has been an abuse thereof. As aptly stated by the lower court, there was need for execution for “an indefinite discontinuance in office (guardianship) would defeat the intent and purpose of the order relieving the present guardian.